From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro,talk.politics.space,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Re: Clinton and Space Funding
Date: 27 Sep 92 14:10:56 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1992Sep26.231446.20605@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.135849.20626@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman) writes:
>>
>>Let's see, ole Chris landed in the New World in 1492, the first viable
>>colony landed in 1620. Apollo landed on the Moon in 1969. So we should
>>expect private enterprise to land a commercial colony on the Moon about
>>2097.
>
>Sorry, Gary, back to the history books.  Columbus's first voyage was
>financed by his uncle, who had made money on earlier Portugese voyages,
>and a fringe religious group with large real estate holdings.  

Read before you complain Nick. I didn't claim Columbus was government
funded.

>Spanish colonies were founded in the second and subsequent voyages, 
>which were underwritten by Isabel under the mistaken belief that Columbus 
>had found a new route to India.  The colonies were made possible in no
>small part because air, water, food and energy were native, not
>imported.  There were hundreds of thousands of people of primarily 
>Spanish descent living in the New World by 1629, along the the world's 
>largest gold & silver operations and some rather spectacular cathedrals.

Spanish "colonies" were fundamentally different from the Plymouth colony
which is why I didn't include them. They were Missions, funded by the
Church, and they were Conquistidors funded by the Spanish "military
industrial complex." They were mainly *men* who acquired "native" women as
companions, something highly unlikely in outer space since "Mars Needs
Women", or so I've heard. :-)

>The reason commerce isn't colonizing the moon is quite simple really;
>there isn't anything there to make one wealthy.  It's an obstacle, like 
>Death Valley was an obstacle to the 49ers -- the borax came later and
>didn't convince very many people to live in Death Valley.

Indeed. As I remarked in another post to Dennis comparing private lunar
exploitation to the Hudson's Bay Company model, "Where's the beaver pelts?"
The Moon may have considerable scientific and military value, and the
gravity may be *necessary* for long term human occupation as opposed to
free flight colonies, but there's little of commercial interest to Earth
bound companies that we have discovered so far. The Moon is not well
explored, however, and something equivalent to borax may be waiting there
for us to find.

>Meanwhile, it is useful to put comsats in GEO, and commerce has spent $10's 
>of billions on that; it is useful to keep watchtowers in space and
>the military has spent $10's of billions on that.  Farther out beyond
>Death Valley, the relatively unexplored parts of the solar system, like
>asteroids and comets, could well provide the next big boost for commerce,
>and both the funding and technology for truly self-sufficient space
>colonies.

Possible. Government funding is not necessary any more for comsats,
that industry has already been jumpstarted to profitability. The
military is just a customer, though a demanding one, for spysat
systems. Government efforts need to concentrate on jumpstarting
new activities in space and on planetary bodies. Thus both Fred
and a Lunar outpost are justified on the grounds of research and
development into new technologies and new environments. I know you 
prefer comets, and think Fred and Apollo II are obstacles to your 
holy grail, but not all of us agree that robotics is up to the
task or that we should take such a long step away from home in
one fell swoop.

Gary