bernie@watarts.UUCP (07/26/83)
I am basically in agreement with what's been said so far (i.e. reduce costs rather than spend *lots* of money), and feel that the sooner private individuals can become involved in the exploration and colonization of space, the better. The government (even efficient parts of it, like NASA) are not very good at doing anything important; ideally, a little healthy competition will bring down the cost of space travel the way it's brought down the cost of computers, video games and all the various "toys" that surround us. However, we are not yet at the point where small, private organizations can afford to build their own space colonies; for the time being, government support is an unfortunate necessity. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
philipl@bronze.UUCP (Philip Lantz) (07/30/83)
I think TOM MCGUINNESS has a good point about how expensive the development of space is. Not that I begrudge the money NASA gets; I think that the more they get, the better (as I'm sure do most of the people who read this group). However, they could do a lot more with their money if they were willing to take higher risks. We haven't had a single American die in space, which is something to be proud of, but has it been worth the cost? In the early days of air flight, a lot of non-government development was done, and a lot of people lost their lives in the process. It should be possible for equally rapid (and profitable) development to happen with space flight, if people (both astronauts and investors) are willing to put up with the high risks. So far, no one has. Philip Lantz tekmdp!bronze!philipl