From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Newsgroups: sci.space,talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 21 Dec 1992 18:25 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: usa, world
NNTP-Posting-Host: judy.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec21.163942.17983@cs.rochester.edu>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes...
>I'll address Wingo's other points in another message.
> 
>I asked Wingo to bring up a resource that could be obtained from
>space that was not substitutable, used in small quantities so that
>price rises could be tolerated, or in short supply.   He suggested
>platinum.
> 


Paul Platinum is only one of many metals that, if we have at a minimum, a 
translunar transporation system would be cheaper.  There is no single holy
grail that will justify the space program. Communications is one that is the
most obvious money maker today, so is weather forcasting and Global positioning
from the GPS satellites. You make the mistake, whether intentional or not, of
building a straw man to break down when you target a single technology that
may or may not be better done in space. This is not entirely your fault or
others of similar mindset, due to the unfortunate fact that the space advocacy
community also does the same thing by focusing on a single or small number
of technologies as justifications for the program. A serious considered look
at the problems of pollution, population, and wealth generation from a 
systems perspective clearly show the advantage of increasing the resource
base upon which mankind must draw for survival and prosperity. I do not know
why most space advocates have not caught up with this simple fact but that
is the way it is. It seems that since the fall of Dr. Von Braun there has
been little vision for the continuance of progress in the arena of space.

We are changing this little by little. Von Braun as well as Bear Bryant is dead.
As in Alabama we have had to go for a new football coach, we in the space arena
must press forward without Von Braun. Your arguments within the narrow 
context of your statements may by true. What you are forgetting is that there
is much more to this world than your perspective and your view. We must 
address multiple problems that in a one on one basis are not solvable with 
your solutions, or in the areas where your solutions are viable, they mean an
increase in costs, both in the areas of resource extraction and in the
area of catalyst or any other subistitution. The very process of subsitution
in engineering is one of compromising a desired quantity or quality for an
inferior one. (In most cases).

In investing the initial investment in a inner solar system space transportation
infrastructure, we open up vast resources for our use here on earth. This is
totally in keeping with five thousand years of man's experience. From the
ships of Carthage and Greece, the Roads of Rome, the Highways, Railroads,
Canals, and Airways of the modern world. This is so simple that it feels dumb
to have to relate it to an intelligent indivdual.

Wake up, look around, if we do not take this chance it may be a very long time
before the chance will come again. Do you wish to stake the future of mankind
on your suppositions? We do because we can show in  myriad ways how we can
make a better tomorrow. The destiny that the dirtballers want leads in the
end to poverty and a dimming tomorrow. I cannot believe that you want that.

Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Newsgroups: sci.space