From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: govn't R&D
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:49:33 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep27.002146.22800@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.181713.18060@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> corleyj@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Jason D Corley ) writes:
>>
>>	It all becomes this question: What are we looking for
>>when we go into space?  How much are we willing to sacrifice for
>>it?  And what will we do when we get there?
>
>We're looking for stuff that is (a) useful, so people will pay for
>it and (b) builds a market for industrial capabilities like launch 
>vehicles that help the entire space industry.  The answer to the
>dilemna could well be this: NASA should conduct research,
>build prototypes, and publish them; commercial industry should implement
>and operate. 

I agree with this part in part. 

>NASA should not presume to predict the industries of the 
>future; it should follow the lead of commerce and do research in support 
>of it (esp. comsats, launch vehicle technology, and the airline industry 
>should be the biggest engineering programs under its charter).  

And I strongly disagree with this part. NASA's charter is to break new
ground, not act as the captive applied engineering branch of some commercial
entity. NASA is supposed to operate out on the edge where no commercial firm
will venture, doing exploration and pure research that drive new technologies.
*And* doing the operational things that allow such research, such as Fred and
the Shuttle and an outpost on the Moon. If profitable commercial interests 
want their lead to be followed, then let them *lead* with their own money 
and their own engineers. NASA has no charter to *follow* anyone else's lead. 
It's supposed to be a leader itself in areas where commercial entities fear 
to go.

Comsats are a profitable business, no more government kickstart is required,
let them pay for their own engineering staffs. Aircraft manufacturers are 
profitable businesses, let then hire their own engineers to design their own 
airliners. Space launch systems aren't yet profitable without government
subsidy and support. NASA should be involved here with HLV programs, SSTO
programs, NASP, and even more exotic systems. As NASA contractors find
profitable applications of NASA funded technology developments, let them
*license* the technology from NASA and persue their own profits in the
private space business. NASA can move on to the next challenge.

>It
>should also engange in exploration for it's own sake; we're not so
>poor that we can't afford to expand our horizons.

Yes, we've done the Grand Tour, now it's time to take a closer and more
detailed look in our own backyard then move out further a step at a time 
as our experience and database grow. Our first major objective should be
to throughly explore our nearest neighbor in space with deep drilling
programs and surface exploring to find out more than flying sensor platforms 
can tell us. Once we are confident we can do those tasks well, then we can 
look at the only other place in the solar system where running water once 
existed. We can even fly some more box brownies to some of the tourist 
attractions in the system like Jupiter and the Comets. (sounds like a
sixties music group)

Gary