From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II)
Subject: Re: save the earth - ridiculous!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 06:54:05 GMT

In article <1jobnoINNsm0@gap.caltech.edu>,
 jafoust@cco.caltech.edu (Jeffrey Alan Foust) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.024932.18367@netcom.com>,
> ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes:
>>	I haven't seen anything in the California Green Party Platform
>>concerning space exploration at all.  This is probably an omission that 
>>should be corrected in the 1994 document.  We probably ought to say some-
>>thing about the use of liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen rocket motors vs.
>>aluminum perchlorate solid rocket boosters - the former are far less 
>>polluting.  We should also push for the recovery of all launch components.
>>A lot of multi-stage rocket launches just drop their used stages into the
>>ocean.
>
>	Instead of pushing for recovery of all launch components (which would
>drive up the cost of each launch and probably necessitate considerable 
>redesign of all existing boosters), the Calif. Green Party should consider
>supporting the development of single stage to orbit (SSTO) technology
>currently in the works.  Everything that lifts off the pad ends up in
>orbit.  Such boosters promise to lower the cost of lifting payloads into
>orbit considerably.  (It also uses LOX/LH2-fueled motors, so it burns clean, 
>too).

	O.K., it sounds good.  I'll look into this.

>>The extraction of any meaningful quantity of re-
>>sources from space would involve a higher initial capital cost than any
>>project yet undertaken by humans, and the return on our investment might take
>>a century to come in. 
>
>Not necessarily.  It may very well be possible to do something, with a cost
>on the scale of Project Apollo (a few tens of billions of dollars).  I've
>heard of proposals to establish small-scale mining facilities on the Moon
>at around this range, and also missions to near-Earth asteroids where a 
>mass-driver is slapped on the asteroid, slowly bringing it to the vicinity of
>Earth, where it can be mined for anything and everything useful (just
>about any metallic element you can think of, including silver, gold and
>platinum, assuming you select an iron-nickel asteroid).  

	Nice, if you want gold, silver, or platinum.  These elements have 
some chemical uses, but their principal merit has been their scarcity, which
allowed them to be used as the medium of exchange in monetary systems.  Dump
a few hundred tons of these metals on earth, and all you do is devalue the
existing stocks (that is, where people are still backing purchases with
gold).

	Raw materials are not our basic problem, IMO.  We need clean energy,
and we need sustainable agriculture.  The clean energy issues might possibly
be addressible with space technologies.  I remember reading a bunch of glowing
predictions about solar power satellites in the 1970's.  Will these, too,
only cost "a few tens of billions" to build?  That was not my impression.
I also remember reading about some environmental concerns associates with
solar power satellites.  The power was to be transmitted down to Earth in
the form of microwaves, and a receiving dish several miles across would 
need to be built on the ground.  The air around the receiving dish was 
expected to increase in temperature significantly, both from the high 
albedo of the dish itself, and from energy dissipation induced by the 
microwaves being transmitted.  There was talk about significant changes in
local weather patterns around one of these dishes.  I wish I still had 
the original literature I read...

	To summarize: 1) The large-scale exploitation of resources from
space is too big of a project for any one country's space program; 2) space-
based resource exploitation can have environmental effects on Earth.

>> I don't foresee humans being able to use any meaning-
>>ful quantity of space resources until we have a cohesive social order on
>>Earth - which, incidentally, is a big part of what the Green Party is about.
>
>"A cohesive social order" -- sounds like an awfully fuzzy goal to me...
>what does that mean?  

	Well, if you read this newsgroup for a while, you'll start to get
a feel for what Greens think a cohesive social order is.  I received some
email from someone who said to me that "we are the last generation that will
be able to afford to go into space."  I don't share his pessimism, but I 
think he touched upon a critical point.  A cohesive social order will be 
one that allows everyone who needs to put up the bucks to feel like they
can afford to do so.  The United States groused and grumbled when Kennedy 
declared that Americans would walk on the moon, and they chafed at the ex-
pense.  Nevertheless, the majority of Americans eventually got behind the 
moon shots, because they felt that their basic needs were pretty well met.
(Before anyone tries to tell me about all the Americans left out in the 
cold, believe me, I know.  I simply say that the majority of Americans felt
pretty comfortable financially.)

	So, in the 1960's, Americans anted up for the Apollo missions.  I
doubt you would find that kind of enthusiasm today - most people have begun
to feel their prosperity slip away from them.  And I submit to you that 
all the interesting things to be done in space will require several times
the current NASA budget.  So, we would need partners.  Where will we turn?
Well, let's see.  The world's biggest space program was run by the now-de-
funct Soviet Union, and the financial hardships experineced by the people
in that country are well-known.  There's the ESA, the Japanese, and the 
Chinese.  Their programs are all smaller than ours.  Judging from the 
current state of affairs, I don't think that anyone feels like they can
afford to risk a project of the magnitude that it would require to develop
space resources.

	To summarize: meet people's basic needs first.  That's cohesive
social order.  Then we can all beam up to the Enterprise and have a great 
time.

>(Note: I'm not a Green: my political views are moderate.  I *strongly*
>believe, though, that continued exploration and development of space is
>essential to the future of humankind, which is how I found my way into
>this newsgroup (a friend of a friend told me about the discussion).)

	And so do I - in good time.  I think space *exploration* is a 
worthy goal, and should be continued.  We are laying the groundwork for
future generations, and yes, I'm as excited as any amateur astronomer when
the latest pictures come in from Voyager or Magellan.  However, I think
space *exploitation* will not be practical at any significant scale for
about a century.

>Jeff Foust                        Senior, Geophysics/Planetary Science, Caltech
>jafoust@cco.caltech.edu   			   	 jeff@scn1.jpl.nasa.gov

-- 
== John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM ==
"Great composers do not borrow -	     "Talking about music is like
 they steal."  - John Ladasky	      ~ -     dancing about architecture."
(quote stolen from Stravinsky, who    o o     - Elvis Costello?  Laurie
 stole it from a statement made by     >        Anderson?  Frank Zappa?
 Pablo Picasso about painting, who    \_/    -------------------------------
 stole it from...)			     "Property is theft." - Groucho
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius
============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.greens