From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 11:19:50 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:23:34 GMT

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:
>: > 	Can any of you think of any moral or philosophical justification
>: >	for using huge amounts of taxpayer money to fund the "space
>: >	program" at all?  Not counting, of course, it provides high-
>: >	pay, high-tech jobs for a bunch of us.
>: 
>: Yes I can.  How about these for instance:
>:
>
>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?

>
>:    b) Telemetry systems that were the basic building blocks of what is
>:       now saving thousands of lives in the health care industry.
>:    c) High tech plastics such as Kevlar (used in bullet proof vests)
>:    d) All sorts of materials science enabling planes, cars, etc to be
>:       lighter and more energy efficient.
>: 
>:    Each of these has helped our standard of living and quality/length
>:    of life arguably more than the cost of the program.

Since this is far from being an exhaustive list of the resulting
technologies (not to mention knowledge), this is a vacuous point.

>: 
>: 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? Furthermore,
are you so sure that launch technology will never improve to the
point of cost effectiveness. Hang on to your hat, but a Single-stage-to-
orbit technology is being developed as we speak that could reduce launch
costs by a factor of 100.

>
>:    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...

for example, or nuclear, etc.

Have you seen the cost of building nuclear plants?


>
>:    c) Room for expansion of the human race.
>
>You could take the entire human race and put it in the state of texas,
have
>1/3 the state left over to grow enough food to feed the people, and still
>have 1/3 of the state left over for natural habitat.  The cost of moving
>people into outerspace is absurd, even for a handful.

My are we short-sighted.... First of all I want proof of this statement,
complete with statements of the water utilization, land per person,
soil depletion, resulting pollution to the state, etc.... Second of all,
our
population is growing. Are you willing to bet that we will always have
enough room? Lastly, I contend that making predictions of cost in the
far-future based on present costs is ridiculous because it assumes no 
technologic breakthroughs.

>
>:    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.

> 
>: 3) Unless we expand our horizons into space our technological culture
>:    will almost certainly not last another hundered years.  Before you
>:    say 'good' remember what effect this would have on people, imagine
>:    the entire world in the same position as Somalia etc.  Not a pretty
>:    site.  I doubt there will be much relief comming from non-existant
>:    'little green men'.
>:
>
>It would be a lot wiser to focus on planet earth.  Get rid of the welfare
>state would be first thing to do.  Invest in appropriate infrastructure,
>such as high speed data networks and possibly trains would be second. 
Such
>infrastructure investments would allow more spread out communities to
>flourish instead of the increasing burdens put upon the cities that we
>see beginning to fail already.  Third, get rid of farm subsidies, because
>we already have the technology for far less than 5% of the population to
>work to feed the other 95% - just getting the food where it is needed is
>stifled because of governmental interference.

Good idea. I contend that space exploration and development is the next
industrial revolution and IS part of industrial infrastructure investment.
The fact is that the space program is CHEAP. People like you look at the
dollar figures, ignore the % of the tax dollar spent, and ignore the
benefits
returned.

> 
>: Have a nice day
>
>I do not mean to imply that an intelligently planned and used space
program
>does not make sense.  The cost of providing living conditions for humans
>in such a hostile environment is just way too costly.  Unmanned
spacecraft
>map entire planets for us... satellites help us gather information about
the
>earth (when we look at the earth from space)... space provides us with
>communications possibilities known to us only in the last 3 decades.

Spoken like someone who believes robots can do everything humans do.
Now THAT is a fantasy. Robot spacecraft do alot, but they do far from
everything.

>Star
>Trek is a total fantasy, but a nice TV show to watch :)

Fortunately, not everyone is as visionless as you. I'll bet had you been
born
100 years ago, you would have been expounding on the inpracticality of
human
flight.

Norman

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




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