From: mwgoodman@igc.apc.org (Mark Goodman)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.space
Subject: Re: Original NRC article
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:14:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:bcstec.ca.boeing.com:3210:cdp:1600000003:000:3333
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mwgoodman    Aug 18 07:14:00 1992


To:    talk.politics.space
From:  Mark Goodman (mwgoodman@igc.org)
Re:    Space Manufacturing
Date:  18 Aug 1992
 
My original post got garbled during uploading.  Sorry.  Here's a repost:
 
Bob Hall writes:
 
 > > A national strategy of microgravity research should focus on basic
 > > science, not space manufacturing, because so far scientists have not found
 > > any materials that should be manufactured in space, a panel of the National
 > > Research Council said in a newly published report.
 
 > Funny how this works, eh? These folks tell us we shouldn't do research on
 > space manufacturing because we haven't found anything to manufacture yet.
 > Hmm, I suppose they have therefore concluded that there can not be any
 > such materials. Somebodies head is stuck in a very dark space here...
 
What's so strange about that?  If we don't have anything to manufacture in
space, why should we do it?
 
 > > "The main rationale for the microgravity research program should be
 > > to improve our fundamental scientific and technological knowledge base,
 > > particularly in areas that are likely to lead to improvements in processing
 > > and manufacturing on Earth," the report stated. "A secondary rationale
 > > should be to develop the technologies for handling materials in space and
 > > possibly for processing materials to be used in space."
 
 > That's an awfully expensive way to improve your Earth manufacturing techniques.
 > Why learn how to handle and process materials in space if you are not going to
 > manufacture anything up there?
 
This isn't really so strange.  The report emphasizes basic research,
and there is much to learn about the behavior of materials --
especially fluids and phase transitions -- under near-zero gravity.
The benefits of such research are unpredictable, but they will likely
have a significant impact on materials processing.  Since materials
processing now takes place on earth, the benefits would be seen first
on Earth, but eventually also in space.
 
 > > "A fully automated (robotic) free-flying spacecraft can offer major
 > > cost advantages," the report stated. "Some experiments require the
 > > advantages of a space station laboratory but others can be done as well or
 > > better, and certainly at less expense, in a free-flyer configuration."
 
 > Sure. Got a spare $20 billion?
 
Where'd you get that cost estimate?  I think the reason to emphasize
research, at least at the early stages, is that it's cheaper than full-
scale manufacturing. If you start out trying to manufacture things in
space, you'll waste a lot of money making a lot of mistakes before you
get on track, expecially since nobody has anything to manufacture yet.
 
There is another side-benefit of an automated research facility, one
that NASA may not like.  The development of more powerful automated
systems in space would further diminish the value of people in space.
Perhaps advanced remote-control technologies -- virtual reality? --
would be the next best thing to being there.
 
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+
|       Mark W. Goodman       | What a terrible thing it is |
| mwgoodman@igc.org -- econet | to lose your mind.          |
| goodman@ksgbbs.harvard.edu  |                             |
+-----------------------------+-----------------------------+