From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 04:15:21 GMT

Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: In article <C03q6D.J6y@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
: >Dr. Norman J. LaFave (lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov) wrote:
: >: In article <C00z4x.8Ln@unix.portal.com> mike myke schwartz,
: >: mykes@shell.portal.com writes:
: >: >Jay Denebeim P025 (denebeim@brtph254.bnr.ca) wrote:
: >: >: In article <1992Dec17.172656.27110@technology.com>
: judy@technology.com
: >: (Judy 
: >: >McMillin) writes:
: >: >
: >: >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
: >: > 
: >: >: 1) The space program has always paid for itself by the worth of the
: >: >:    technologies developed for it.  A very few are:
: >: >:    a) Microelectronics without which we wouldn't even be talking.
: >: >
: >: >AT&T, the PHONE company (as opposed to a space technology company)
: >: >invented the transistor.  Microelectronics would have happened without
: >: >the space program.  DEFENSE technology had much more to do with all
: >: >of the stuff you talk about here and even the space program itself.
: >: 
: >: And the space program was intimately involved in the development of the
: >: integrated circuit. So what is your point?
: >: 
: >
: >NOT quite as rosey as you make it out to be...
: 
: Oh, how so? The statement was made above that AT&T caused the
: microelectronic evolution and the space program had nothing to do
: with it. That is fallacious.
: 

Read again.  There are two false assertions above:
1)	Without the space program, there would be no microelectronics
2)	That anyone made the statement that AT&T caused the microelectronic
	revolution and the space program had nothing to do with it.

The assertion 1) was made, and simply proven false.  Without NASA we would
have microelectronics.

: >
: >: >: 
: >: >: 2) The end goal is potentially very good.  A fully developed space
: >: >:    program would enable several things:
: >: >:    a) Vastically reduced pollution.
: >: >:       This would be achieved by moving polluting industries into
: >: >:       orbit, and producing our energy needs on orbit.
: >: >
: >: >This is almost laughable...  the expense is outrageous...
: >: 
: >: And what do you call the cost of environmental clean-up?
: 
: Oh, I don't know....ask the people at Love canal, three-mile island,
: Brazilians living in chemical filth, Exxon, ....
: 

What's the cost of rebuilding after a major earthquake or hurricane?  What's
the cost of cleaning the chicken shit (i.e. natural) from the Arkansas Rivers
so the fish there stop dying?  Shit happens, and we fix it.  Or do our best.

: >Too bad YOUR job would
: >be in jeopardy, though, or you would be less blind to the reality outside
: >the space program...
: 
: That is a cheap shot
: having little to do with this debate. I can get a job doing other
: things MAKING MORE MONEY tommorrow. I do this
: job because I believe in it.
: I am quite aware of the realities outside
: thank you very much!
: 

No cheap shot at all.  And very relevant to the thread, or have you missed
the questioning of vision.  I don't begrudge the man the fact that he
makes money - in fact I am glad he makes money AND does what he likes to do.
But it clearly taints his view.

Where our two visions differ is that I feel the space program should be a
profitable venture.  My vision is that the free market will drive us as
far into space as we will truly want to go.  If enough people are willing
to pay for transit to mars, the technology for getting there will be built
and will be made cheaper - if it costs too much, people won't pay.  If NASA
stops tomorrow, AT&T will still launch satellites, as long as they can 
ammortize the cost.  The Defense Department will still launch spy satellites
(or whatever).

: >I say use that 100x cheaper technology when it gets
: >here, but only if it is economically viable.
: 
: Here's a free clue Mike: It won't get here unless we invest in it and,
: at this time, corporations won't even fund their cheap
: incremental development labs yet fund long-term research.
: 

I question your understanding of realities outside the space program when
you make statements like this.  The government funding of the space program
eliminates competition, reduces invention, reduces access to space, and is
a money losing proposition.

: >It costs $90/person to send
: >an airplane from SF to LA...  At 100x cheaper, you are still advocating
: >spending tens of millions to send one person.
: 
: Here's another clue: A shuttle flight can hold 8 people plus PAYLOAD
: and costs 100 million per flight. Now you do the math before you
: embarass yourself further.

A cost of $12.5 million per person.  And you want to sell me on how using
the shuttle is the cheapest way we have now (or had in 1969 even) to get
payload into space?  WISE spending of our tax dollars?

Speaking of incremental improvements, you've still got 5 orders of magnitude
to catch up with the airplane cost.  And you've got orders of magnitude to
go for payload, too.  It is obvious why you talk about needing more than
incremental improvement, you are projecting NASA's needs onto the world
outside NASA.

Let's talk about my incremental improvements - things that the free market
has driven.  2 years ago, my PC was 5 mips.  Today it is 30.  2 years from
now, I expect a $4000 computer to be 150 mips and capable of modeling ideas
you nor I can dream of.  At that price, that kind of computer will be used
by millions of people.  What you scoff at, I don't know.

: 
: >
: >: >
: >: >:    b) Very cheap power.
: >: >
: >: >Very cheap power is just as likely to happen without space technology.
: >: >Solar,
: >: 
: >: Which just happens to be most effectively converted in space...
: >
: >True.  But it doesn't make it cheaper per kilowatt.  Nor does it require
: >MANNED space craft to implement.
: 
: I suppose you wouldn't like to provide data for this assertion?

I'll let the free market prove it.


: 
: >
: >: 
: >: for example, or nuclear, etc.
: >: 
: >: Have you seen the cost of building nuclear plants?
: >
: >About the same as a space shuttle shot, but it generates useful power
: >for decades.
: 
: If it's so wonderful, how come construction of these plants have
: ground to a screeching halt? I suggest you learn more about the
: history of the nuclear power industry and its failures.

Wonderful how the free market works, isn't it.  The free market will always
seek safer (more conservative) and cheaper sources.

: >
: >
: >: >
: >: >:    d) Cheap materials. (gold etc)
: >: >:
: >: >
: >: >Barry Bonds gets paid 5x his weight in gold.  Would be cheaper to just
: >: >send him around :)  Seriously... how do you come up with this?
: >: 
: >: Read recent reports on the mineral make-up of asteroids.
: >
: >OK, but still not an argument for manned space flights.  A manned space
: >station, for example, has little to do with a billion dollar satellite
: >launch to bring back $2Billion in gold (or other mineral).
: 
: Show me where anybody has proposed that a robot spacecraft do this
: kind of mining? Hint: robots are not sophisticated enough. Furthermore,
: it will probably take longer and be more expensive to make them
: sophisticated enough than it would to develop cheap access to space.
: 

Pardon me, but I pictured a robot spacecraft designed to bring the asteroid
to Earth orbit.  But the point is that if you send up a $100 million rocket,
plus some cost for payload, you better bring back the investment PLUS enough
return to warrant the risk.  In other words, a % return on the investment
to encourage the market to invest.

: >When it becomes economically viable, the free market will naturally bring
: >us out there.
: 
: Oh yeah... our corporatios can't even look past their quarterly reports
: and
: you are telling me that these incompetant, short-sighted panty-waists
: are going to lead us to the stars? I don't think so. They're to timid and
: risk-adverse to make the initial investment it takes to achieve this
: ambitious goal. NASA IS making this investment.
: 

Are you talking about those high-tech sillycon valley executives who came out
in favor of Clinton?  You win this point.  But besides those turkeys, there
are plenty of people with vision who do great things.  Because of free market
principles, people build things that other people want.  People invent new
things that people want all the time.  People do it in their garages just
as well as companies do it in labs.

: >Infrastructure spending on a worldwide fiber optic net,
: >and improving that technology is economically viable now.
: 
: Timid incremental development....the reason our nation is losing
: its technology lead. Surely you have more vision than this...

Another statement that leads me to believe that you are unaware of the real
world.  Our nation is not losing its technological lead.  Other nations are
simply gaining in technological ability.  And we're helping them and benefiting
from it.  When I went to UofI in 1978, there were 15,000 Japanese enginering
students - not Japanese Americans, but Japanese citizens.  They got the best
US education in technology possible and took it back to Japan to teach and
apply to real world applications.

Where you are as wrong as you can be, you would reduce our competition
so our ability to compete is naturally going to be impaired.  What do you 
expect?

: 
: >The money would
: >be much better spent on that.
: 
: Fine, keep deluding yourself into thinking that this is some kind
: of great achievement and will be a major economic boon.
: 

I bet 40 years ago, you would have been one of the opponents of building the
interstate highway system :)  There is NO doubt that it would be a great
achievement and a massive economic boom.  Soooo many new industries, that you
apparently don't conceive of, would be born.  And industries that would force
the free market into a significant amount of worker training.  It would 
reduce the need to (gasp) launch a lot of communications satelittes, though... 

: Dr. Norman J. LaFave
: Senior Engineer
: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company
: 
: 
: 
: 
: When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
:                                Hunter Thompson
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65702 alt.politics.homosexuality:8543