From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
X-Xxdate: Thu, 31 Dec 92 09:18:20 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:22:03 GMT

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.

>
>: >: 
>: >: 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, ....

>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.
>: 
>
>I call it necessary, and a better use of the money.

Huh?

>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!

>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.

>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.

>
>: >
>: >:    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?

>
>: 
>: 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.

>
>: 
>: 
>: >
>: >:    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.
>: 
>
>Let's see the technologic breakthroughs FIRST, because it costs less to
>do research than it does to practice launching costly manned space
flights
>with TODAY's dollars.

Oh, I see, you want something for nothing.....

>
>
>: >
>: >:    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.

>
>: 
>: > 
>: >: 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.
>: 
>
>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.

>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...

>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.

>Spending money for the sake of spending money
>on things that are cheaper to develop on earth and have much greater
return
>and equally encourages technological research and development is stupid.
>
>
>: > 
>: >: 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.
>: 
>
>I have seen that robots can do much more than humans can do, at much less
>cost, when it comes to space exploration.  Send men to the moon and they
>bring back rocks.  Send a robot to venus and we get a detailed 3
dimensional
>map of the entire planet.  Send a man into space and we improve diaper
>technology.
>
>: >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.
>: 
>
>OK, you just changed my mind with you enlightened argument. 
COngratulations.
>NOT.  

You don't understand...I never expected to change your mind. That truely
is
beyond human capability.

Norman

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




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc