From: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Jim Mann)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
Date: 31 Dec 92 16:10:09 GMT
Reply-To: jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gondolin.pubs.stratus.com

In article <1992Dec30.210727.2116@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> Dr. Norman J.  
LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> In article <1992Dec29.011735.16300@cs.rochester.edu> Paul Dietz,
> dietz@cs.rochester.edu writes:
> >Let me try this again: your historical argument is just bullshit.   
The
> >reasoning is vacuous, independent of the truth of the conclusion.
> >There are too many differences between then and now to accept the
> >argument as anything more than sloganeering.
> 
> >For example: (1) the
> >vessels they used to explore were straightforward extensions of  
known
> >technology,
> 
> Oh, so rockets used for space exploration sprung from the ground as
> seedlings?
> Does the word Buzz-bomb mean anything to you? Does the name X-15  
mean
> anything. The fact IS that the present vehicles are extensions of  
known
> technology!

No, but rockets aren't being used much commercially, especially
to put people anywhere.  The ships used to explore and
develop the new world were straight forward modifications of ships
that were being used in mass quantity to sail around the 
Mediterranian and the North Atlantic.

> 
> >(2) the lands explored did not involve significant
> >differences in technology in order to survive [those that did,  
like
> >the high Artic, were left largely alone for centuries],
> 
> Note how you convenently leave out deep-sea exploration which
> has recieved significant exploration and did require technology
> development. How about the exploration of the high energy world?

And how many people are now living in the deep-sea
environment?  How much are we mining in the ocean depths?  The
original debate wasn't about exploration but about commercial
development and colonization.

> 
> (3) the
> >resources they found could be exploited at low cost and yet  
returned
> >benefits large in proportion to the size of their economies.   
These
> >conditions don't appear to apply to space.
> 
> Since we have done little in the area of exploiting space yet, this
> is pure speculation. Furthermore, satellite communication and
> weather monitoring has been quite profitable thank you very
> much.

Yes, to some degree it is pure speculation. But the burden of
proof really is on the side of those who want to invest
billions in opening space for mining, manufacturing, and
colonization, not on those who are saying "I'm not going to
shell out my money until you show me that it would be worth
it."

> >The track record so far in space is that some limited automated
> >applications are useful, or profitable (comsats are profitable, at
> >least for the moment; the others are government-run, so we don't  
know
> >if they really would be profitable.)  Space resources?  We went
> >to the moon and found... very little of practical value.
> 
> The knowledge we gained, by itself, was worth the cost.

Maybe. In fact, probably. However, would the same be true of
the billions more needed to colonize space.  My gut feeling
is "yes" since I think space IS part of our future, but this
is by no means certain.

> >You advance the straw man argument that I am arguing that there  
will
> >never be any benefits.  As you say, we can't know that.  But lack  
of
> >certainty doesn't mean we are absolved from the need to make  
decisions
> >on how scarce funds are expended.
> 
> Right. The choices are:
> 
> a.) Fund only safe, incremental research and wallow in stagnation.
> We could be penny-wise and pound foolish while our international
> competitors continue to kick our economic butts.
> 
> or b.) Return to the bold, risk-taking, adventurous, society we use
> to be and return to prosperity.
> 

The problem is that the bold, risk-taking etc. steps are also
very expensive and very unproven. Cheap but very risky is OK.
Very expensive but with at least a good chance for a payoff is
also OK.  But very expensive and with really no good grasp
on how certain the payoff is, is not OK, especially in times
when budgets are tight.

--
Jim Mann            
Stratus Computer   jmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com  
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space,sci.space