From: Mark Goodman <mwgoodman@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Date: 15 Aug 92 07:53 PDT
Subject: Re: Original NRC article
Nf-ID: #R:bcstec.ca.boeing.com:3210:cdp:1600000002:000:2985
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 15 07:53:00 1992


To:    talk.politics.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    Space Manufacturing
Date:  15 Aug 1992

Bob Hall writes:

 > > A national strategy of microgravity research should focus on basic
 > > science, not space manufacturing, because so far scientists have not found
 > > any materials that should be manufactured in space, a panel of the National
 > > Research Council said in a newly published report.

 > Funny how this works, eh? These folks tell us we shouldn't do research on
 > space manufacturing because we haven't found anything to manufacture yet.
 > Hmm, I suppose they have therefore concluded that there can not be any
 > such materials. Somebodies head is stuck in a very dark space here...

What's so strange about that?  If we don't have anything to manufacture in 
l scientific and technological knowledge base,
 > > particularly in areas that are likely to lead to improvements in processing
 > > and manufacturing on Earth," the report stated. "A secondary rationale
 > > should be to develop the technologies for handling materials in space and
 > > possibly for processing materials to be used in space."

 > That's an awfully expensive way to improve your Earth manufacturing techniques.
 > Why learn how to handle and process materials in space if you are not going to
 > manufacture anything up there?

This isn't really so strange.  The report emphasizes basic research, and there
is much to learn about the behavior of materials -- especially fluids and phase
transitions -- under near-zero gravity.  The benefits of such research are
unpredictable, but they will likely have a significant impact on materials
processing.  Since materials processing now takes place on earth, the benefits
would be seen first on Earth, but eventually also in space.

 > > "A fully automated (robotic) free-flying spacecraft can offer major
 > > cost advantages," the report stated. "Some experiments require the
 > > advantages of a space station laboratory but others can be done as well or
 > > better, and certainly at less expense, in a free-flyer configuration."

 > Sure. Got a spare $20 billion?
 
an full-scale manufacturing.
If you start out trying to manufacture things in space, you'll waste a lot of
money making a lot of mistakes before you get on track, expecially since nobody
has anything to manufacture yet.

There is another side-benefit of an automated research facility, one that NASA
may not like.  The development of more powerful automated systems in space would
further diminish the value of people in space.  Perhaps advanced remote-control
technologies -- virtual reality? -- would be the next best thing to being there.

+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+

Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA