From: hall@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Robert J. Hall)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Original NRC article
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:15:20 GMT
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle



 > Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org) writes:
 > What's so strange about that?  If we don't have anything to manufacture in
 > space, why should we do it?

Certainly if we can not manufacture anything unique or cost effective in space,
then we should not do so. But how will we find out if there is nothing to
manufacture if we do not perform the necessary research? My reading of the
NRC message is that we should not perform research on space manufacturing
because we do not currently know of anything we can manufacture. If the same
logic were applied to all science projects, very little research would be
funded.

 > 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.

Certainly we can learn a lot about materials through space research. I'm
not argueing that point. I'm just saying that we can use the same money to
perform MORE research here on Earth. We may not necessarily get the same
end results, but we'd certainly get results. My arguement is that space
research would be more likely to have cost-effective long-term benefits
if it was applied to things we can do directly in space.

 > Where'd you get that cost estimate?  I think the reason to emphasize
 > research, at least at the early stages, is that it's cheaper than 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.

The cost estimate was a bit of sarcasm, but I don't believe it was that
far off the mark. The platform will still need much of the infrastructure
that is currently being included on the Space Station: solar panels,
the frame, communications, multiple computer controllers & million-line
software packages, etc. Plus you need to throw in the robotics and their
associated software. The launch costs will still be there, albeit somewhat
reduced if we used expendable launchers. (Now that's an ironic statement.)

Anyway, I'm not saying we should start out directly with manufacturing,
but that the research should be directed toward that goal. Naturally we
would need basic research, but the orientation would be different.

 > 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.

Except for the time delay - a common complaint among people using
satellite communications. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with this point. I
just disagree with the direction of the research.
-- 
 Bob Hall,                 | "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
 Workstation Peripheral    | Then give up. No use being a damn fool about it."
 Boeing Computer Services  |                                     -Groucho Marx
Organization: Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA