From: Dr. Norman J. LaFave <lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Justification for the Space Program
X-Xxdate: Wed, 30 Dec 92 15:03:44 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Company
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:07:27 GMT

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.

Maybe you would like to state these supposed huge differences
which negate my arguement instead of waving your hands....

>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!

>(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?

(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.

>
>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.

>Space
>manufacturing?  Endlessly hyped with little to show for it.

Since nobody has done any space manufacturing, this is mere
speculation and a vacuous arguement.

>Microgravity research?  Impartial scientific review says it isn't
>worth much.

Maybe you would like to cite this so-called impartial review?

>
>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.

>You can't just say "you can't prove
>me wrong, so gimme."  At least, not with a straight face.

But I can say that there is an extremely high probability, based on
historical precedent, that you are wrong. That should be more than
enough reason to fund bold initiatives like space exploration...
unless we want to continue to act like a country of panty-waists...

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Senior Engineer
Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company




When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
                               Hunter Thompson
Newsgroups: sci.space