BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA (08/16/84)
From: Bruce Bon <BON@JPL-ROBOTICS.ARPA> There is at least some truth in what JoSH says regarding the "quick-buck" theory of government. I believe that the current Earth-bound status quo is metastable -- i.e. it will take a fairly big push to overcome the status quo, but after that then the settlement of space will come naturally, inevitably. My most optimistic estimate of the push required amounts to at least $100 billion! I don't see the necessary funds coming forth from the private sector under any reasonable scenario within the next 50 years. Part of the consequence of this assessment (which I hope is pessimistic!) is that if I am to see the settlement of space, the government must do it! Since what happens after I die has little meaning to me, I will use the "quick-buck" theory to get what I want -- I am selfish!! Beyond my own selfishness, there is a serious possibility that before we can expand into space, we (the human race) will obliterate our ability to do so. For this reason, I really do believe that the "public good" and my personal gain coincide. If I could live a thousand years and was assured that World War III would not occur, I probably would agree with JoSH's conclusion. Since neither is necessarily true, I will continue to support government funding for space development. Bruce Bon Bon@JPL-Robotics ------
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (08/17/84)
Many writers to the net, including the one I'm responding to, claim that government cannot develop space. One wonders, in that case, how we went in only 25 years from nothing at all to: o A half dozen moon landings (manned). o Two Mars landings. o Several Venus landings (USSR) o Several space stations (Skylab and Salyuts) o A reuseable space plane (Shuttle) o Three visits to Saturn and Jupiter o Visits to Mercury o An in space infra-red map of the heavens (IRAS) o Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit. with strictly government projects. I believe that the time has come for private enterprise to enter space, but it is unproductive and inaccurate to denigrate the contribution that government has and will continue to make to space development. Also, as private firms get real experience in space I think you may find that they may not out perform NASA as much as some believe. For example, the recent Starstruct launch - all of 3 seconds of perfect flight followed by another 11 seconds with a failed valve - cost (according to Space Calendar) 3-4 times as much as expected and and took 3-4 times as long as expected. Many a flame could be avoided by good hard data and real hands on experiance.
JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA (08/20/84)
From: JoSH <JoSH@RUTGERS.ARPA>
From: Bernoff.SoftArts@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA
Subject: A message on behalf of Ben Bova and NSI.
*from: BERNOFF (Joshua D. Bernoff)
...
Mr. Bova is also President the National Space Institue, a
worthwhile organization that has been asked to testify before
congress more than any other space public interest organization.
(NSI was founded by Wernher von Braun.)
...
This message asks you to join NSI. As its prime purposes, NSI
keeps its members up-to-date on space exploration activities
and represents the interests of people like us in Congress. As
the NRA has demonstrated, organizations of this type have
clout, and are a force to be reckoned with. NSI is one way the
people on this list could make themselves known and powerful AS
A GROUP.
... Dammit, what happens
in U.S. space efforts is probably the most important part of
many of our futures.
Thanks,
Josh
The NRA hasn't done so hot. What other rights in the Bill of Rights
are so universally spit upon as the Second Amendment?
But trivialities aside, I'd like to register a dissenting opinion
to some of the implications above. Essentially, the future of
mankind in space depends on breaking the government stranglehold
on space activity. Those working to involve the government more
heavily in space are working to have an Amtrak, a Post Office, or
a Dept. of Education in control of what would otherwise been the
greatest adventure of the human race.
The only thing that the government SHOULD be doing in space is the
only thing it ISN'T: aggressively protecting the rights of its
citizens. Instead, paranoid of any miniscule power they, the citizens,
attain ("formidable to tyrants only"), the government restricts,
regulates, and wraps in red tape any private endeavor, but what is
worse, creates and maintains an atmosphere of uncertainty about
both its own efforts (NASA's highly subsidized offerings would be
instantly hauled into court as predatory price cutting it it were
a private company), and its restrictions on others'.
I once asked Charles Sheffield what was wrong with the nuclear rocket
(NERVA style); why wasn't anybody using them? Well, he replied, they
were known to be feasible and would probably be considerably more
economical than chemical ones, but were illegal, both by law and
by treaty. Now, there's no law of nature that says that space
exploration has to be cheap enough for any significant fraction of
the people to be able to do it--but if there is a way, it is nuclear
power or something better, not the "Cecil B. DeMille" method whereby
the government accomplishes one grand thing in a lifetime using the
efforts of millions of slaves.
Governments are great at being Ozimandias, but make lousy truck drivers.
Government-run enterprises, and those under close government control,
show a moribund tenacity to old ways that would be the doom of any
space expansion effort. --And that's assuming it's successful; that's
assuming that people are so convinced we need space that they'll put
up with the horribly high costs involved, the way they put up with the
Post Office. My bet is that Nasa will continue to blow in the political
wind, going in fits and starts, running hot and cold depending who's
in favor, who's in power, whether 49 or 51 percent of congressmen woke
up on the right side of the bed this morning.
The corner used rocket lot next to the local spaceport--this image could
be reality within a century. First we must have a political environment
in which it is possible to have the corner used airplane lot next to the
local airport. Instead it costs about $2000 just to get a pilot's
*license*. If space is run by the government, you can just throw all
those old dreams out the window. Although it's next to impossible, a
political space supporter could hope to put together a coalition of
interests similar to the "military-industrial complex". Although in the
quarter-century since that phrase was coined, DoD has spent upwards of
a trillion dollars, what has it *accomplished*?
Space enthusiasts, like many others before them, have been suckered in by
the "quick-buck" theory of government: Spend your time and money
convincing the government to do what you want, and you'll get a
"multiplier effect", being able to accomplish more than if you had
applied your efforts directly to your end. It worked for the railroads
from 1880 to the 1950's; for the airlines from the 1930's to 1980.
It still works for the farmers as a sector, though most the small farmers
it was supposed to help are bust, and agri-corporations get the payoffs.
It has worked for defense contractors since the 30's in a big way.
More recently this gold mine has been discovered by everybody from
the aged to the zoologists. What all this has to do with space is
that like any resource, competition soon brings its cost into line
with its benefits. How are you doing in the political arena now?
Tomorrow will bring more, not less, clamoring fools with some plausible
theory about how the "public good" and their gain coincide.
I hate to see otherwise intelligent, decent people throw away their
integrity, and indeed their ultimate chance for success, for the
seductive short-term promise of coercive gain. And I hate even more
for them to ruin my own chances for independent success, in the process.
--JoSH
-------henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/21/84)
> Many writers to the net, including the one I'm responding to, claim that > government cannot develop space. One wonders, in that case, how we went > in only 25 years from nothing at all to: > o A half dozen moon landings (manned). > ... > o A reuseable space plane (Shuttle) > ... > o Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit. > with strictly government projects. While I, for one, agree that the government has made useful contributions, this should not be confused with the notion that the government is the *best* organization for developing space. The specific cases I have picked from your list are examples of how the government has botched the details while getting the basics right: * A half dozen moon landings, manned. With no followup. None. Mankind no longer has the capability to land on the moon; it was thrown away after those six missions. It will have to be rebuilt nearly from scratch. The last two flight-ready Saturn 5 boosters, which could have launched Apollos 18 and 19, are now rusting tourist exhibits. ARGHHH!!!!!!!! * A reuseable space plane. Well, sort of reuseable. If the engines turn out to work as well as NASA hopes, despite poor early results. Of course, the thing is five times as large as it needs to be, and as a result the orbiter fleet is about a fifth the size it ought to be. And it's so expensive that expendable boosters are still hot competition. * Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit. True during the heyday of NASA. Starting to be true again. How many were there between 1970 and 1980? I am not saying that these things weren't worthwhile; they were. But uncritical worship of the way the government has gone into space is grossly inappropriate -- they have botched almost as many things as they have gotten right. > Also, as private firms get real experience in space I think you may find > that they may not out perform NASA as much as some believe. > For example, the recent > Starstruct launch - all of 3 seconds of perfect flight followed by another > 11 seconds with a failed valve - cost (according to Space Calendar) 3-4 times > as much as expected and and took 3-4 times as long as expected. Remember Project Ranger? Six straight failures? Of course, NASA was young then... Give others a chance to get past their teething troubles before you judge them. -- "The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry