From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Gov. R&D
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:01:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: netlink.woBViB1w164w
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

Steinn Sigurdsson writes:
>In article <Added.AdsDe7S00UkT9Vhk8p@andrew.cmu.edu> 18084TM@MSU.EDU (Tom) 
writes:
>
>
>   >>   Perhaps you should look at the Keck telescope(s) as another good
>   >>   example of why you are wrong.  It's totally private.
>
>   > While it is true that most of the capital cost of Keck I & II
>   > were paid for by the Keck foundation, a very nice ( :-) ) private
>   > charity, the design and operation will mostly be paid for by
>   > the State...
>
>   >...in company with the first 10-meter telescope.  Projected cost is 
$93.3
>   >million.  Keck Foundation has donated $74.6 million.  Asking NASA for
>   >remaining $18.7 million.  First light in 1996.
>
>   Ok, it's not TOTALLY private.  But the point remains that this project
>   is proof that Gov. is not the only way to do Big Science.
>
>You miss the point. The Keck telescopes had most of their construction
>costs funded by private money, but in order to _run_ them with any sort of
>effectiveness, a sustained funding source was necessary, as the
>endowment necessary would be larger than the construction cost by
>a considerable margin, the operation was essentially handed over to
>the State, via UC. Also, once built, State agencies funded
>instrumentation as being cost-effective way of doing some astronomy.
 
Tom points quite correctly to the Keck telescope as an advanced
technology "infrastructure" whose construction and financing
were private.  
 
Steinn points quite correctly to the fact that the actual science
operations of the Keck will be government funded.
 
The only problem with the Keck is that the revenues from its users
will not be enough to amortize the risk adjusted capitalization of
the scope.
 
If people really want astronomy to advance fast, they should demand
that the USERS of astronomical observatories be given enough money to 
pay for the true risk-adjusted amortization of astronomical facilities
AS WELL AS the cost of operations.  Then they should be allowed to
choose where they will go for services.
 
You'll have people building all kinds of crazy instruments that
the astronomers actually need.  Of course, in astronomy, the
technosocialism hasn't gotten to nearly the point it has in
other areas of space -- not even with Hubble -- although
Hubble WAS a pretty nasty attempt by the technosocialists to
consume the credibility of astronomers.
 
The basic philosophy is that science is a government function but
risk management must be kept in the private sector.  You do that
by decentralizing the government funding to the points of use
so they synthesize a market (in this case, a market for astronomical
 services demanded by individual astronomers) which attracts
private capital.
 
THAT is the kind of "public/private partnership" we need to advocate.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!nosc!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 435-6181
Newsgroups: sci.space