TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISIE@sri-unix.UUCP (07/21/83)
From: TOM MCGUINNESS <TMCGUINNESS@USC-ISIE>
Has anyone ever really considered just how expensive space exploration
really is? I know that we could run three programs for the amount of
money that we spend on cancer sticks,cosmetics or video games, but when you
look at Government spending (non defense and non "human services",I
mean the 11% that's left to run everything except DOD and HEW), NASA soaks up
alot of that money. What have we got for that money? NASA says that it hopes
that it will have a permanent 4-6 person space station in orbit by 1991, 30 years after Alan Shepard first took his sub-orbital flshows a committed interest in a human presence in the solar system. It seems
to me that our space program has evolved into a program for developing big
military or big science projects rather than viewing space as a "place"
as most of us view it.
I'm not against the expenditures of funds for military space programs,
or for things like Space Telescope or IRAS but these projects all represent
a sort of Big Think that will keep space as an area where you place sensors or
weapons rather than an area for resource exploitation or human development.
Perhaps we need a program, non governmental to see what the cheapest
systems that could be developed; ie what is the cheapest man carrying
vehicle that we could develop,or what is the least expensive space suit that
can be developed. Of course the cost of this would be systems that may be
considerably riskier to fly and use. Anybody know the probability of
catastrophic failure that the Shuttle operates under when it flies?
Try this thought experiment on yourself or someone who claims to be a
"space-enthusiast", what is the maximum percentage probability of
fatal accident that you would accept to live on an L-5 colony or
participate in a manned lunar base? Maybe I'm missing the point but
if the development of the New World in the 16th and 17th century
went the way we are developing space, then I think we might still
be waiting for the Jamestown colony to be founded.
==================================================================================================================================-------REM%MIT-MC@sri-unix.UUCP (07/22/83)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM @ MIT-MC> Jamestown and Plymouth were founded by those persecuted who wanted to escape. Earlier, Columbus staffed his ships with prisoners who would get a pardon if they volunteered to sail off the edge of the Earth. Rotting in jail was more painful than instant edge-of-earth death, and there was always the possibility that the ship might get stranded on some island before reaching the edge, or they might escape somehow, so they chose the voyage. Do we want to do the same now, force death-row people to fly to space? Warning, in those days, you went to jail for life because you were bankrupt, your debts were greater than your assets, often because somebody cheated you and you couldn't prove it. Thus for the most part those crews were good people in desperate situations. Nowadays most death-row innamtes are multiple murderers who killed for money, not the best crew for space adventures. Or do we want to return to the days when bankrupt people went to jail and rotted there? I really don't think we can afford to send people up on risky flights. Normal people will refuse to go, and criminals will be criminals and sabotage the launch so they have a chance to escape or just be totally incompetant to get useful work done. Thus we have to go with moderately safe vehicles, although perhaps not as safe as NASA has traditionally enforced. /----------------/ Regarding the question of space development vs. sensors&weapons: I agree, although Einstein/Uhura and IRAS were/are wonderful, and space-based defense against ICBMs may be necessary for our survival, we really need to work on materials and habitat too!