From: benson@gemed (Mark Benson)
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Reply-To: benson@gemed.ge.com (Mark Benson)
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee,  WI
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 92 16:06:48 GMT

Barbara Trumpinski (trumpins@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu) writes:

>i am NOT a scientist...or a researcher...or even anyone important.  i
>am a simple library tech.  however, i deal with the real world in ways
>you gentlemen probably can't imagine...my life has been directly
>affected by the economy...and by the lousy education system...and by
>the overwhelming lack of spirit in the u.s.

>i STILL have dreams...i know that i am never going to the stars...but
>someday, maybe, my children will...or maybe even the college students
>i know/work with will be able to have the adventures or do the
>exploring that i can only dream about in between chapters of my
>latest science fiction novel...

Barbara,

    Library techs are important.  I spent my college years as a lowly student
    assistant (UIUC Biology Library, in fact).  Between that, summer jobs,
    and loans I managed to put myself through school.  Since then I've been
    through several different industries, staying one step ahead of the axe.
    Many of my friends have not been so lucky.  The very talent we need to
    go to Mars and beyond is being "transitioned" into other "worthwhile"
    industries, like telecommunications, or PC things like electric cars.
    Or worse yet, joining the growing "service sector" of the economy.  This
    is a tragedy of near biblical proportions, and the results of this lack of
    foresight will be felt for decades to come.
    
    The space program in America is stuck in neutral because all the classes
    of victims created by liberal American politics are busy fighting over 
    their piece of the pie rather than focusing on how to bake more pies.  
    Unless this attitude changes, we will never make significant progress in 
    the space arena.  Even the discussion in this group mimics politics as a 
    whole - fund SSTO, dump the shuttle, screw manned space efforts in favor of
    more probes, etc.  IT IS POINTLESS TO ARGUE OVER THE MEANS WHEN WHAT IS 
    NEEDED IS A COHERENT VISION!
    
    So back to the initial topic - how does one justify the space program(s)?
    What are the basic reasons to go into space now?  A deceptively simple
    question with decidedly complex answers:
    
    1.  Exploration  (To boldly go where no man has gone before...)
        This has always been a legitimate function - to seek new lands,
        resources, facts.  This part of it also requires dreams and vision,
        which apeals to young people, and may help motiviate the to study
        math, science, enigneering, and other skills which are most useful to
        society.  The best reason to explore, however, is that you simply
        don't know what your going to find.
        
    2.  Applications
        Recon, earth observation, and comsats now, perhaps materials processing
        soon, and manufacturing farther out.
        
    3.  Technology development
        Argue over spin-offs til you're blue in the face, the point is that
        large aerospace ventures (like space programs) drive both key 
        technologies and engineering processes.  I would argue that the biggest
        benefit of the Apollo program was the emergence of systems engineering
        and integration as disciplines in their own right.
        
    A properly defined space program to adress these areas (and there may be
    others), focused on a series of objectives and milestones would be far
    better than the drift we see today.  Even better would be if this could
    be accomplished on an international level.  Finally, more resources are 
    needed.  There are two ways to do this.  First, always remember that
    productivity drives programs - if you can do it better, faster, and cheaper,
    you get to do more.  And I really think the good done by a properly focused
    space program would attract the attention and funding it deserves.
    
    We now return to the discussion of the Nirvana of SSTO vs. the hell of STS.
    (I like 'em both - but zealots can't admit anyone elses viewpoint has
    value.)
----
Mark Benson	     benson@med.ge.com| "Are we gonna talk about it, or
GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee, WI  USA|  do something about it?"  HRP, 10/92
Newsgroups: sci.space