From: mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz)
Subject: Re: Democrat == Loony Left??? (was Re: Christiani
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Organization: Portal Communications Company
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:13:24 GMT

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...

: >: 
: >: 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.
: 

I call it necessary, and a better use of the money.  Too bad YOUR job would
be in jeopardy, though, or you would be less blind to the reality outside
the space program...  I say use that 100x cheaper technology when it gets
here, but only if it is economically viable.  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.

: >
: >:    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.

: 
: 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.

: 
: 
: >
: >:    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.


: >
: >:    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).

: 
: > 
: >: 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.  Infrastructure spending on a worldwide fiber optic net,
and improving that technology is economically viable now.  The money would
be much better spent on that.  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.  

: 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,misc.legal