From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Mon, 28 Dec 92 16:28:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:32:26 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.204243.7616@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
>Since your reasoning seems inherently incapable of being disproved,
>even if wrong, I don't see that it has any value.

My arguement has the benefit of centuries of historical precedent
which is more than your "There will never be benefits worth the
expense" arguement you are spouting which can be
easily argued against using the same historical
information. Can I prove my assertion?
No. However, neither can you prove the contrary. The overwhelming
number of historical accounts which support my point makes the
effort of space exploration worth the risk.

I would rather be bold and take risks in the hope of expanding my
horizons than sit around dumb, happy, and complacent
while we slip into decline.

Let me clue you into something....there are many phenomena in this world,
which appear to be true due to overwelming evidence, which are neither
well-understood or structured enough to be "proven". A
given phenomenon is believed
to be true because either a.) The phenomenon always occurs, or b.) The
phenomenon happens the vast majority of the time, or c.) It can be
rigorously proven to be true. Choice c.) may be superior to the other two,
but it is not the only method which defines "belief of validity". Indeed,
most of our experimental science is based on a.) and b.) for its
foundation.

>Theories have to be
>falsifiable to be useful.

Untrue. Theories need only be logical, and self-consistent
with experience, to
be useful. Theorists develop and study theories that lack
definitive proof all the time.

>In practice, you *will* have to argue that
>a project has specific benefits or it will not be funded (or, rather,
>you won't get funded for your *next* project, as with Apollo).

And this is what is wrong with the whole system. Hundreds of
examples of
pure science leading to unforeseen applications and unheard of prosperity
are ignored in favor of safe, incremental development which barely
keeps our economic head above water. This is not the way our society
became great. Taking risks use to be the ideal in this
country and lead to our greatest achievements and our economic
and technical superiority.  We have lost these benefits due to our
timidity and lack of foresight.

>
>You mention comsats, etc.: yes, but that has little to do with the
>Club of Rome/wild schemes of space resource exploitation that started
>this thread.

Satellite communication was once thought of as wild fantasy too. Surely
you have more perspective than this. You are only making my
point for me.

>Moreover, these benefits were not unpredicted: Clarke
>forecast geostationary communication relays in 1947.

Clarke was a visionary, as has been many science fiction writers
(Jules Verne, Micheal Crichton, H. G. Wells,...).
The predictions of a science fiction writer may indeed come true, but
they are not the same as the predicitons of engineers and scientists
in their same field of endeavour. Furthermore, this does not negate
the fact that benefits are already here that 
short-sighted people like you would have
killed before fruition if you had been allowed to do so. You would
have claimed that communication by satellite was a
"Club of Rome/wild scheme" and dismissed it as the ravings of "zealots"
(I'm a zealot too!!).

Paul, we have been round-and-round about this before.... I suggest
that you are in dire need of a history of science and technology
course or need to read the writings of the great scientists to know
how little they understood the awesome potential of their
discoveries.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson