Conference 7.286::space

    What are the goals ?
    
    		Bruce

    	In fifty years time:
    
    	The Space Station.
    	The Spaceplane.
    	Permanent lunar bases.
    	Manned flights to Mars.
    	Landing probes of the Jovian worlds and their moons.
    	Heavy space industry.
    	Mining the asteroids.
    	Possibly space cities.
    
    	The book also emphasized more INTERNATIONAL cooperation to achieve
    these goals.  
    	
    	These are, of course, just basic plans.  My question is, in
    light of recent NASA developments (setbacks?), are they possible
    by the year 2036?
    
    	Larry
    

    Are these developments possible?  Yes, the Soviet Union will
    accomplish them near the turn of the century.
    
    Do I sound pessimistic about the U.S. space program?  You bet
    your sweet $%$* I do!  Let's look at what is happening with
    the U.S. space program.  NASA finally(!) got permission to
    build a replacement orbiter (let's not argue the need here).
    But construction of the thing is going to stretch out over
    5 YEARS!!!  Does anyone seriously expect it to get done on
    time?  And beyond that, the actual funding for the replacement
    hasn't been specified, just some indefinite figures which not
    only don't say where the money is coming from, but which will
    probably cause NASA to squeeze out other projects.
    
    What about planetary exploration?  I still think it was a shame
    the U.S. didn't bother to send a craft to Halley's comet.  We
    are losing our lead in this area to the Soviets.
    
    Space planes?  Sounds good on paper, but its more whizzy high
    tech which will probably take twice as long to complete as
    anyone would admit to.
    
    Lunar bases?  We abandoned the moon after Apollo, don't see
    any chance we'll go back for a long time.
    
    Manned flights to Mars?  Maybe if we hitch a ride with the
    Soviets.
    
    I could go on and on, but the point is that the U.S. DOESN'T
    HAVE A SPACE PROGRAM ANY MORE!  There are just a bunch of
    projects which are starting to fight amongst themselves for
    a share of the funding.
    
    While we've been blowing our technological horns the Soviets
    have steadily plodded along.  Sure reminds me of the old
    fable about the Tortise and the Hare.  Our spurts of speed
    will not suffice to catch up with the Soviets in the end.
    
    Anyone remember "The Man Who Sold the Moon" by Robert Heinlein?
    One of the characters was a business man who was trying to gain
    funding from other businesses.  He scared one staunch republican
    by showing him a picture of the moon with a Hammer and Sickle on
    it.  Pretty far out, isn't it?  Change the "isn't" to "wasn't"
    and it begins to worry me.
    
    Excuse the excessive flaming, but I feel unless something is done
    QUICK to get NASA back on track with proper funding we can kiss
    the NASA we knew in the 60's and 70's goodbye.
    

    Hi, new guy here,
    
    re .3:
    
    Did you see yesterday's AWST? The letters page was devoted solely
    to letters expressing your sentiments exactly. I agree 1000%.
    Sometimes when I read about our Space Program I could just cry or
    murder. We could have been to Mars by now, we could still be there,
    it's been nearly TWENTY YEARS since we landed on the Moon. So much
    time WASTED. Wasted by petty bean counters, who can't see beyond
    the next election. 
    
    Did anyone see 60 minutes Sunday? The interview with R.Admiral Grace
    Hopper (then Cpt.)? She said the problem with this country is
    management. Nobody ever "managed" a platoon in battle, you LEAD
    men into battle. There is no leadership anymore, just management.
    That is what happened, not just to NASA, but to this country in
    general.
    
    sigh,

                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 / 
    

    
    	I agree with Re. 3
    
    	What we need is to take NASA off the beggar bussiness.
    	Adequate funding over the long term, and firm goals like the
    	ones mentioned in Re .2
    
    	It makes me sad/mad to think that NASA has to go begging every
    	year to congress, and never knows if its next foot down will
    	land on solid ground or just sink trough a non-funding hole.
    
    Gil

    RE: Space plane we were damn near there in the late 50's, Yeager
    and White and some other guys were flying sub-orbital when Eisenhower
    got his panic button pushed and we created NASA out of the old
    civillian agency (uh what's it's name??). We threw away the ability
    to have an operational shuttle in the 60's by going with "spam in
    the can"......now we've thrown away nearly everything by being
    miserly....it's a shame.

    re .5
    
    I agree that we need to take NASA out of the beggar business.  But
    how do we put our money where our mouths are?  I would like to send
    my contributions to NASA (just like I send to WGBH etc.) but I don't
    believe that I can (without the money ending up in the big pot of
    defense department spending.)  Is there a way to accomplish this.
    I believe that there are still enough people in this country who
    believe in Space Exploration that we can significantly fund a number
    of projects.
    
    Comments?
    
    >Peter<
    

    re .6
    
    The predecessor to NASA was NACA, National Advisory Committee for
    Aeronautics. I think the Army was working on a manned space capsule
    (Project Adam?) before NASA came into existance. It was short sighted
    to end the research line that lead to the X-15 however. I see it
    as another example of the 'we got there, so theres no need to continue'
    attitude that existed towards the end of the Apollo program.
    
    re .0
    
    Is the book you refer to 'Pioneering the Space Frontier'. If so,
    it is the report of the National Commission on Space. There is a
    note on it somewhere.
    
    gary

    	You are right; I meant FRONTIER, not AGE.  
    
    	Where is this review located in SPACE?
    
    	Larry
    

    <FLAME ON>
    
    	It shames me to hear people who work in the same company I do
    being so pessimistic.  So pessimistic when we are on the way to
    number one, snuffing out a company that has been number one for
    about 50 years.  Did you pessimists ever take a good look at man's
    accomplishments over the last 50 years and compare them with the
    500 years before that?  Another thing that ticks me off is to hear
    the crap I do about joint US/Soviet missions.  The Mars missions
    planned for the early decade of the next millenium is supposedly
    going to be joint.  The Russians have intelligence and experience
    that we could use, and visa versa.  If man is to ever conquer the
    "last frontier" then we are going to have to do it as MAN and not
    Russians or Americans.  I think that Europe and Japan are also good
    canadites for giving a damn good helping hand.
    
    	Things are actually quite better than they could have ever turned
    out.  The government could have pulled the plug on everything after
    finding some of the things that they did find.  By this time next
    year things should be alot better, with a set of three new refitted
    shuttles, and a new one on the way.
    
    	And finally, the space plane is far from a high-tech fantasy.
    I am convinced that man can do just about anything given the time
    and resources.  Hang in there, it will come.  However, if there
    are people like you out there conveying a crappy attitude, then
    it will spread and pretty soon you'll have a public that just wants
    to say to hell with the space program.
    
    	PRG
    
    

    re .10
    
    I don't think there are too many contributers to this conference
    who have 'the crappy attitude' that you mention. The comments made
    are reflecting the general attitude that exists amongst most of
    the population and therefore in government.
    
    Having a positive attitude about the ability to build trans-atmospheric
    vehicles or manned missions to the planets is one thing, and a good
    thing at that.
    
    Trying to develope a realistic view of the capabilities of all the
    spacefaring nations, especially in light of world politics as they
    stand, is a good thing.
    
    Having a 'pollyanna' attitude about it actually happening is another.
    Wishing aint going to make it happen and there is no sign that the
    opinions and attitudes that lead to the current situation are changing.
    Without public support and means of conveying it to the legislature,
    projects like the TAV and the Mars mission may very well be high
    tech fantasy, at least for the US.
    
    gary

    I would rather be accused of having a "crappy attitude" and accepting
    reality than burying my head in the sand and pretending there isn't
    a problem.
    
    Sure, there has been a lot of progress in the past 50 years compared
    to the past 500 years, but any intelligent person MUST admit there
    has been a shift in thinking during the past several years which
    seriously affects the U.S.'s ability to have an effective space
    program.  Every year NASA must go to Congress BEGGING for more money
    for research which has paid dividends six or seven times over.
    That sure wasn't the case during the "race" with the Soviets.
    
    Admiral Grace Hopper said it best - there is too much "management"
    and not enough "leadership" today.
    
    Yes, it would certainly be nice if the "world" could explore space,
    rather than sovereign countries, but don't look for it until we
    can fix our internal problems.
    
    In short, wake up - we're in serious shit here, fella, and if
    something isn't done soon the U.S. is going to lose our lead
    in space exploration.  Complacency is a sin - get off your ass
    and write letters to your congressmen, the president, and whoever
    else you can think of and get NASA back in business!
    

Now that Grace Hopper works for DEC, maybe she'll discover this conference
and enlighten us from her perspective.

-mark

    Actually, I'd rather she was hired to run NASA.  I can imagine she
    should make quite an impact there!
    

    	Let's COMBINE NASA and DEC!
    
    	(not joking)
    
    	Larry
    

    Hmmm.  NASADEC...  Doesn't ring...
    
    
    		How about Digital Equipment Corp. & Space Administration?
    
    			DECSA
    
    jim
    

    	Not bad......
    
    	I bet DEC could get NASA on its thrusters again in no time!
    
    	Larry
    

    NASA and DEC management are rather distressingly similar in many
    not-all-that-desirable respects.  I'm not at all convinced that
    NASA would benefit at all from a DEC infusion.  DEC, on the other
    hand, might well benefit from an infusion of vision, which though
    beleaguered seems still to be alive at NASA.
    							- Bill
    

.17:  But your idea to combine DEC and NASA seems to contradict your own
      personal name.

  Anamoly?

    	How true, how true....
    
    	I guess I want DEC to have visions too - so much so that I even
    get anamolous! :^)
    
    	BTW - good job on knowing that phrase!
    
    	That's the whole idea of this note:  To see if we can ever get
    beyond bureaucracy and explore and settle space in order to fufill
    humanity, not take our problems with us.
    
    	Larry
    

    but DECSA is a product built at ASO.......

    	I know you're being humorous, but I was not referring to them
    - but hey, if they want to join in the endeavour....
    
    	Larry
    

    I was wondering if anybody would recognize - DECSA...
    jim
    

Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!S1-B.ARPA!ota
Subject: The State of the Space Program
Posted: 26 Sep 86 00:23:35 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
The following is a very concise description of my view of the state of
the countries space program.  I concentrated on conciseness since I
intended to get it into a single page letter to my various elected
representitives.
 
Something must be done about our Space Program.  I believe the time has
come to "fish or cut bait".  We must either devise a program that has
goals to reach for and sufficient resources to work with or we should
stop wasting vital national resources on a farce.
 
The current situation is very bleak.  The Report of the Presidential
Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident reveals that NASA has become a
hollow shell of the organization it once was.  It appears that it will
be very expensive in both time and money to fix even the institutional
problems, let alone to buy a replacement orbiter.  All of our other
launchers except the Atlas have had catastrophic failures this year.
The Atlas that successfully launched a weather satellite last week was a
25 year old missile.  In addition, confusion reigns: turf battles
between the military and NASA disrupt their work, amazing regulatory
difficulties face fledgling rocket and satellite companies, and joint
agreements with international partners have been broken too many times
to count.
 
Meanwhile, we pay great costs for delay.  A skilled technician is
furloughed, or changes jobs while waiting for the next launch.  A
scientist at JPL, who has a decade of his career invested in a space
probe, may not see it working for at least another decade.  A company
with a satellite to launch is forced to find a launcher from another
source: the French, Japanese, or Chinese.  Military intelligence and the
SDIO squabble over the dwindling stockpiles of rockets whose production
lines have been shut down for years.
 
A responsible approach would be to cancel the whole thing.  Let the
scientists and technicians get on with productive careers.  Reopen the
Titan production line for the military and COMSAT people.  Spend NASA's
budget on more pressing concerns.  This is not a good choice because it
fails to capitalize on the great opportunity presented by space
development.  But it would be far, far better than staying the present
course.
 
What we need, much more than money, is good old fashion leadership.  A
clear statement of goals, both short and long term, a division of labor
between the many government players, and some help to get private
industry going.  NASA should be returned to the research and development
business.  The military needs a redundant supply of rocket launchers.
Space science needs shorter lead times between experiment and results.
Everyone needs cheaper access to space.  The commercial prospects for
space development will be far clearer with reliable launchers available
on dependable timetables at sensible prices.
 
We have come to a time for decision.  We must set our sights high and
extend our reach or cut our losses and get on to other things.  We must
act now!

  I feel the same way as 209.24, but have a feeling that if we go with "fish
or cut bait" it's going to be "cut bait".  Space is like computers.  You
don't know the impact of exploiting the thing until you've done it and it
takes a long time before you've got anything that the man on the street
appreciates.  Maybe we should label things "This product exists as a result
of space technology".

  If space were looked upon as "Gosh, look at that!  We could make *gads* of
money if we could get up there.  Let's go talk to our venture capitalists."
Then maybe we could get somewhere.  But it looks like no one in authority (and
money) really has any idea of what to do with space.  It was pushed by national
pride in the 60's/70's, and has kept going primarily due to the gains of
satellite technology.  It's one of those things where we don't really know
what we'll have until we're there.

  I think that many of us see the possibilities that can happen in our lifetime
if we just start working on them now.  We believe the possibilities.  But
when we plot the intermediate course it gets bloody expensive with little
*forseeable* immediate profit.  What can we tell the man on the street about
space and the possibilites of space that will get him usefully excited?

John

    I think the whole issue must, of necessity, fall back on the issue
    of national pride, which means national security.  We KNOW the
    Soviets have a working space station, although maybe the majority
    of "common folk" don't know this, or realize what it means.  It
    seems little removed from the "orbiting platforms" with bombs
    dropping that sold the space program in the first place.  Space
    exploration is like an investment; if you count the gain on the
    nation's "investment" you'll find more than a six-fold return in
    "spin-off" technology.
    
    Of course, it's hard to convince a 5 year old kid investing money
    rather than using it to buy candy is a good idea.  Likewise, it
    will be hard to convince "Joe Public" spending billions of dollars
    on space exploration will benefit him in the short term.  Someone
    mentioned a good example today: If you ask the average guy what
    is more important, a football game or a cure for cancer, he'd
    obviously agree with the cancer cure.  That same guy will spend
    hundreds of dollars watching his home team play ball and not kick
    in $10 toward cancer research.  How does one change the method
    of thinking of the "majority"?
    

>  How does one change the method of thinking of the "majority"?

  Shock treatment. :-]

    If I might expound on my favorite political theory:
    
    > How does one change the method of thinking of the "majority"?
    
    That's what governments are for.  Most people are most interested
    in the short term.  One of the functions of government is to deal
    with the long term issues.  The government builds roads and airports,
    does health and basic science research, etc etc.  I suspect that
    J.Q. Public would not give these projects much support unless s/he
    were about to drive cross country, or fly somewhere, or dying of
    some dread diesese.
    
    The problem is that elective officials must also keep their sights
    anchored firmly on the next election, which forces them to be at
    least medium-term if not downright short.  I don't know how to solve
    this dilemma.  I don't even know why I wrote this note.  Sigh.
    
    Burns
    

    
    I agree with RE .28, "thats what governaments are for"
    
    To take care of stuff (like the space program).

    That is 	too long range for the private economy.
    		too risky      for the private economy.
    		too expensive  for the private economy.
		etc...
  

Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!sri-spam!rutgers!caip!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: The State of the Space Program
Posted: 3 Oct 86 17:48:02 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Posted: Fri Oct  3 13:48:02 1986
 
> Everyone needs cheaper access to space.  The commercial prospects for
> space development will be far clearer with reliable launchers available
> on dependable timetables at sensible prices.
 
There is a move afoot to do something to encourage development of
cheaper access to space.  The Citizens' Advisory Council on National
Space Policy recently issued a report which has been mentioned
previously in this newsgroup:  "America:  A Spacefaring Nation Again".
 (It's available from L5 for something like $10, and well worth
reading, even though you probably won't agree with everything in it [I
certainly didn't].)  Apart from some short-term measures, such as a
strong recommendation to begin flying the shuttle again IMMEDIATELY,
it contains what may be a very significant thing:  draft legislation
entitled the "Commercial Space Incentive Act". 
 
What the proposed bill essentially says is that the US government will
pay $500/lb for any payload placed into orbit by a US commercial
launch company, subject to one or two restrictions.  *Any* payload --
satellites, materials, water, sand, anything.  Minimum payload size is
10,000 pounds.  The offer is good for a maximum of one million pounds
per year and lasts ten years. There is a 50% bonus if the payload is
manned.  The government gets a chance to use the launch for its
payloads, at that price; failing that, the price gets paid no matter
what gets launched.  If some other customer has bought the launch and
has paid less than $500/lb, the government makes up the difference so
the launch company still gets $500/lb.  The launch company has to meet
launch-safety requirements, but there is no other restriction on
payloads or launch methods. 
 
The numbers are not random.  10,000 pounds is enough to launch a lot
of useful things in one piece.  $500/lb is about one-tenth of the
current real costs of flying the shuttle or shuttle-competitive
expendables. One million pounds per year is roughly the current Soviet
launch rate. 
 
Note that this is not particularly expensive, at worst half a billion
a year plus administrative costs.  It provides the thing that is most
needed to justify the development of *new* commercial launch services
(not just more production of expensive 20-year-old expendables):  a
guaranteed market. At least three companies have indicated intent to
proceed with such development if something along these lines is done. 
Apparently there is already significant support in Congress for the
idea. 
 
This might just be what's needed to make the US a true spacefaring
nation. ("Spacefaring", by analogy to "seafaring", means widespread
and affordable access for large numbers of people and many different
purposes.  Despite the title of the report, the US is not now and has
never been a spacefaring nation, John F. Kennedy's 1962 pledge to make
it one notwithstanding.) It would certainly make an enormous
difference.  Now may be a bit early to start seriously lobbying for
it... but it sure wouldn't hurt to tell your Congresscritter about it
and ask him to support it. 
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry




Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!clover.UUCP!hildum
Subject: Draft of letter to Congress and the President
Posted: 5 Oct 86 17:47:03 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
Posted: Sun Oct  5 13:47:03 1986
 
 
I am drafting a letter to be sent to my representatives in Congress and
the President expressing, in general terms, my concerns over the goals
(or lack thereof) of the space program.  Your comments would be
welcome.
 
 
==================================================================
 
[Gentlemen:]
 
I am writing to you to express my concern over the lack of direction
present in our nation's space program.  It is apparent to me, based on
reports in the popular media and other sources, that our national
space program's projects have been of an ad hoc and narrow focus
nature. Many members of Congress and the Administration have stated
the need for a strategic plan to guide NASA and other space related
public agencies and private organizations; yet a strategic planning
process and strategic plan have not materialized.  Instead, more
single focus projects and quick fixes have been proposed. 
 
I cannot suggest a particular plan; you are in a much better position
than I to initiate a strategic planning process and ensure the
necessary long term funding. You have access to the suggestions of
concerned citizen's groups, agency reports and proposals, and your
knowledge of the needs of this country.  Further, it is your
responsibility as a representative and leader of our nation to assess
the purposes, goals, and values of our nation, and establish the
objectives of our space program. 
 
 
					Sincerely,
					  Eric Hildum
 
===================================================================
 
 
 
		Preferred:	hildum%clover%[email protected]
				hildum%clover%[email protected]
				[email protected]
				[email protected]
 
		Otherwise:	[email protected]
				hildum%[email protected]
				hildum%[email protected]

Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!nike!rutgers!caip!pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh
Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
Posted: 6 Oct 86 05:06:00 GMT
Organization: 
 
Nf-ID: #R:ka9q.bellcore.com:-17800:inmet:10600114:000:8106
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!nrh    Oct  6 01:06:00 1986
Posted: Mon Oct  6 01:06:00 1986
 
 
>/* Written  4:16 am  Oct  3, 1986 by [email protected] in inmet:net.space */
>/* ---------- "Re: Al Globus, L5 Society" ---------- */
>> ...It is more likely you need a
>> high tolerence for LIBERTARIAN shuck and jive. (The society has no
>> particular political stand, but there are enough of us flaming
>> libertarians around to give it a certain flavor if you get into
>> rambling conversations with a group of us)
>
>Bingo!! This is a very apt description.
>
>I, too, dabbled in libertarian philosophies for a short time a few years
>back. I still support many of the purely "civil libertarian" aspects, as
>do many people who are not "libertarians" per se.  However, I kept running
>into a fundamental contradiction.  On the one hand, libertarians believe in an
>utterly laissez-faire economy.  On the other, I believe that the ONLY way a
>number of very worthwhile activities will ever get funded is for the
>government to do it through taxation:  free public education, basic
>scientific research and, yes, SPACE EXPLORATION.  How do you reconcile this
>with libertarianism, where some even go so far as to suggest that "free
>enterprise" can and should replace government courts of law!
 
Phil, There are people with (by me) good libertarian credentials who
believe the government should exist to take care of a fairly
restricted range of functions.  Some of these "minarchists" include
space exploration on their "little lists" because it's arguably an
economic externality.  I don't happen to agree, but I don't doubt that
their hearts are in the right place.
 
I've talked with a man named Hudson, who's a private citizen trying to
get the air force to get NASA out of the way so he can get USAF
booking (in the form of launch sales) for his
privately-designed-and-run launch vehicle.  He thinks it's silly to
think that only governments can go into space, but points out that
while NASA is there, it's unlikely that anyone else will be allowed or
able to get into space, for two reasons.
 
	1. Artificially tough competition: I can't remember the exact figures
Hudson cited, but it works out like this: Hudson can put up a satellite for
about half the cost that NASA incurs putting up the same satellite, but 
NASA, supported by taxes, charges less than Hudson's cost, exclusive of
profit, for doing so.  In other words, as taxpayers, we're helping 
NASA to smother competition.
 
	2. Artificially nasty regulation.  Hudson didn't talk so much
about this two years ago (although it was certainly mentioned) but the
subject has now become a very hot one.  Take a look at G. Harry
Stine's "The Space Beat: The Other Shoe Drops" in Far Frontiers, Fall
1986.  As he puts it, "We've been had.  Badly".  Very briefly, the
government, in the form of an agency called OCSI, has given itself
(via insertion into the Federal Register) the right to stop any launch
that it decides is not "in the national interest".  They also have
unlimited inspection rights, so if you want to send up a really
private cargo, you're out of luck.  Reasonable? Maybe.  I suggest you
read Stine's article if you think so.
 
It wasn't the Spanish Armada that discovered America for Spain, but a
(relatively) private citizen with some back-door government backing.
With this new regulation, space belongs only to whatever the government
feels like allowing up there.
 
This may or may not include a private space industry -- but the problems
with the private space launching have little to do with technical issues:
the real issues are issues of power and politics.
 
>In the end, I concluded that libertarianism is a very simplistic and naive
>approach to an economy that is and must be a hybrid of public and private
>activities.
 
One hears this complexity argument often, but it is nonsensical: which
activity is more complex: that of traders of the stock market pit or
that of the same number of regimented troops?  How about the economy
of the US and that of the USSR?  If things are too complex, it
typically means that you CANNOT run them by authority from above --
you need a distributed scheme to handle the complexity.  (Von Mises
took this to the extreme, demonstrating that a purely socialist
economy cannot function because it cannot set prices correctly without
a capitalist economy to "ape")
 
Now that we've each had our say on that -- let's move further non-space-related
libertarian topics to talk.politics.misc, hokay?
 
>To be fair, a popular rallying cry in L-5 is "get government out of the way
>of private enterprise in space".  This argument is certainly consistent with
>libertarian philosophy.  There's nothing wrong with it as such, except that
>it's a red herring.  The real barriers to commercial space development have
>far more to do with technological and economic facts of life than with
>government red tape, but the latter makes a convenient scapegoat.  After
>all, who could possibly FAVOR "red tape" or oppose motherhood and apple pie?
 
Okay -- let's have NASA charge full cost for launches, and have the
government allow anyone to compete, with minimal intrusion.  As I
understand it, that's all Hudson is asking.  He offers to save the
taxpayer a bundle.  Any takers?  No?  Well why not?  I think your "red
herring" argument is a "red herring".
 
>I wonder, though, how many of those same "libertarian L-5'ers" wrote letters
>and telegrams to their Congresspeople urging them to exact money under
>penalty of law from (i.e., tax) every American in order to pay for the Space
>Station, the 5th (now 4th) orbiter, and other nifty space toys.
>
>You can't have it both ways.  TRUE libertarians would demand that NASA be
>shut down.
 
And some do.  There was an article called "Scuttle the Shuttle" in the
June, 1986 issue of Reason, and another one (which I can't find) called
"NASA's War on Private Space"  or some such, a few months earlier.
 
From "Scuttle the Shuttle":
 
	It's easy to understand why the space lobby wants another
	shuttle--it's simply more business for them.  It's the other
	space lobby -- individuals who join the L-5 society and the
	Planetary Society and who have The Dream of going into space
	themselves -- whose members should take a second look before
	cranking up a lobbying campaign.  They have to recognize that
	although the shuttle is a technical marvel, it's not the
	solution but part of the problem.  It's not the road to space
	but a choke point on the road to space.
 
	The clue is the reaction of the administration and Congress to
	the idea of another shuttle.  They say that in a time of
	$200-billion deficits and of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
	deficit-reduction measures we can't afford to spend several
	billion on a replacement for the Challenger.  Clearly, to
	Congress and the administration, the shuttle is a money-loser,
	not a money maker.  If it were making revenue they'd be
	jumping at the chance to "enhance revenue" by building another
	one.
 
	No one knows how much money is lost on each shuttle flight.
	Revenues for a full shuttle bay come to about $80 million per
	flight.  Estimates of the cost of a flight run as high as $200
	million.  Different economists, making different assumptions,
	reach different results.  But the exact numbers aren't
	important.  What is important is that each shuttle flight
	represents a loss to the taxpayers of something like $100
	million. 
 
	The result is that the amount of traffic to orbit via the
	shuttle will be limited by the amount of money the government
	is willing to lose. The loss of the Challenger hasn't changed
	that reality.  It has only made it more visible.  
 
Has anyone read "I, Claudius"?  In it, the emperor Tiberius, faced with
someone proposing a project he didn't like (as I recall, it was a
memorial to his hated mother Livia), offered to fund it, and then
(after a great many delays) didn't actually come up with the money.
You might say he killed the project with kindness.  It is awfully
"kind" of the government to offer to send payloads up, don't you
think?
 
Needless to say, nothing I say here should be taken as a reflection on
the opinions of my employers or associates.

I don't understand why libertarianism keeps cropping in the context of
space issues.    Maybe it's because the L5 Society appears to have a
lot of vocal libertarians among its members.  However, space is no
different from any other large-scale engineering enterprise in that
there is inevitably going to be a mix of public and private interests
involved.   It's no more a libertarian issue than the highway
system, so I wish they would save the politics for other lists.

/jlr

Newsgroups: net.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Posted: 9 Oct 86 08:19:44 GMT
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB
 
Keywords: space, Moon, asteroids, mining, manufacturing, economics, bad idea
Posted: Thu Oct  9 04:19:44 1986
 
 
Sorry about the length, but it is hard to condense some of this without
the risk of altering the meaning. My editting is in []'s.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Jorge Stolfi writes a fairly length
article :
> [...]
>
> I do believe that one day we will have space colonies and moon bases,
> and that we will be mining the asteroids and manufacturing goods in
> space for use in space.  However, I believe that even with wildly
> optimistic assumptions about funding and politics, this will take much,
> much more time than all the man-in-space enthusiasts believe (or want
> us to believe).  
>
> Let us first consider the development of a COMMERCIAL space industry,
> that is, mining and manufacturing in space of goods
> for consumption on Earth. [Ignoring information services]
>
> I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations
> in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years.  In fact, I
> believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably
> NEVER going to make any economic sense.  
 
NEVER?? I find it hard to believe that someone would say that, given the
current rate of technological change.  I agree that in thirty years 
the chances of any space-to-Earth commerce are pretty small, but in 
one hundred? Two hundred? A thousand?  Never is a long, long time. 
 
A second point, which has been echoed in this group more than once :
it will be economical to manufacture items for use *in space* long before
it is economical to ship them back to Earth. There is one product which
will be economical before any others : electricity.  You forgot to
mention powersats, which could, with an admittedly large investment,
(10% of the DOD budget) turn into a multi-billion dollar a year industry 
by 2016. You also seem to have picked on the least promising part of
the whole space-based industry idea : manufacturing in space for 
consumption on Earth.  Sure, this will not be profitable for a long time,
but meanwhile, you are ignoring information services, some of which are 
already making money, and manufacturing in space for use in space, which 
has the greatest potential of all.
 
> For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true:
> 
>   1.  Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to
>   manufacture sophisticated products. 
>  
>   2.  Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be
>   worth mining.
 
Agreed, though eventually a point will be reached where the amount of
raw materials needed in orbit will make the cost of lauching it from
Earth prohibitive, and a handy alternative source is the Moon.
  
>   3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can
>   expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth.
 
Sure, but so what?  The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the supply
of raw materials is basically limitless.  Who cares if your efficiency is 
only 10%?
  
>   4.  The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably hydrogen.
>   That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling station; quite
>   on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out of the Moon will
>   have to be brought from the Earth.  Also, if the manufacturing or
>   smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any form (or chlorine, or
>   nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy will be necessary to recover
>   those precious elements from the waste products.  
 
Agreed, the lack of volatile elements will be a problem. All the more
reason for asteroid mining.  Carbonaceous chondrites are *known* to 
consist of organics, and getting 10E5-10E7 tons of the stuff at once
sure beats the hell out of shipping it from Earth. You are also assuming
that the primary fuel for the next thirty years will be H & O, probably
correctly. There have, however, been studies which use lunar soil to
produce an aluminum-based solid rocket fuel. If you don't like this, 
there is always mass drivers.
 
>   5.  Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in space
>   is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing the same
>   product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth.  Labor, materials
>   and equipment for space manufacturing are more sophisticated than their
>   Earth equivalents.  
 
Again, this is true as far as it goes.  There are some highly complex
pieces of equipment which are cheaper to construct here on Earth
and then send into orbit, only because the demand for items of this
type will be relatively low and the manufacturing infrastructure needed
to produce it expensive.  These are not the kinds of products that 
will be produced in space, though.
  
>   6.  [Generally negative comments on the usefulness of microgravity
        and high vacuum - "... it is still highly unlikely that those few
        resources that are unique to space will ever find significant
        industrial applications." - w.r.t. metallurgy, bio-industry]
 
>  7.  [Semi-conductor crystal growing is out of consideration due to
        the state of the art here on Earth.]
 
Sure, for the next thirty years, this is true.  However, you have to
remember that the amount of research in this area is still incredibly
small.  We will never find out if any useful alloys or biological
products can be produced until we actually try it.  We don't know enough
about zero-g manufacturing at this point to say that nothing useful
will ever be discovered because we really haven't looked yet. 
 
>   8.  In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a
>   serious problem for many industrial processes. [Uselessness of
>   standard techniques of chemistry etc.]
 
Again, we are just starting to explore the territory of zero-g 
manufacturing.  It is obvious that new techniques will have to be
developed.  Some processes cannot be converted to zero-g.  We have
yet to be sure, but there must be a few that are simpler in zero-g.
We need someone from SSI here to say a few words about low- and zero-g
smelting.
  
>   9.  To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the costs
>   of designing, building, and launching the factory.  The smallest space
>   factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of dollars more than a
>   comparable facility on Earth.  If such a factory is going to make 100,000
>   somethings a year for ten years, it would have to charge its customers
>   THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just to pay the extra fixed costs.
 
It all depends on what you make.  Sure, you can send up a factory to stamp
out zero-g Chevy front quarter panels, but that does not make economic
sense.  Noone is going to spend billions to manufacture a product
in space which can be made cheaper here on Earth. For the foreseeable
future, the only things which it makes *any* sense to manufacture in
space are things which are going to *stay* there : simple but bulky 
construction materials, for example.  We don't know enough about any exotic 
products to be able to say whether or not they can be produced economically.
 
>   10.  Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials from
>   Earth.  Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from the Moon
>   itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to lift the
>   product out to space.  In both cases, transportation alone is going to 
>   cost several hundred dollars per pound of product.
 
Agreed, but this high price also means that no high-quantity production
will be going on.  For the period of time we are discussing, the primary
activity will be research, so the transportation costs of raw materials
and finished products are not important. 
   
>   11.  [Long lead time to construct a space factory - "during that period,
          demand for its product may easily evaporate".]
 
See point #9.
 
>   10. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids.
>   Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse.
>   Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made of.
>   Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid mining program,
>   perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned probes to check whether
>   there is something there worth digging, no?
 
Actually, we have a fairly good idea of what they are made out of.  Analysis
of meteorites (iron, stony, and carbonaceous) indicate that there is
just about all the raw materials we need : nickel, iron, hydrogen, oxygen,
carbon, silicon, add titanium and aluminum from lunar soil, and you
can almost be self-sufficient.  NASA has had an asteriod-rendevous project
on the back burner for years.
 
> All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next
> thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend.
 
I would *love* to be able to prove this wrong.  What could NASA do with
one hundred billion dollars a year for the next 30 years? (What could
Gerard O'Neill & Harry Stein do with it?)
 
> NASA and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and
> the lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a while,
> but will be disastrous in the long run.  Sooner or later the paying
> public will realize that those projects will only bring
> multibillion-dollar losses to the economy, year after year for the
> foreseeable future.  If you think that the post-Apollo debacle was bad,
> wait until this one.  
 
Oops, I just saw a fallacy : "multibillion-dollar losses to the ecomony"???
What do you think they do with all the money that they use to build the
shuttle? Take it up into orbit with them and dump it?  NO!! It gets used
to pay the people who run the program and build the hardware, who use it
to buy groceries, and cars, and VCR's and personal computers so they can
argue with each other at long distance!  I don't have the reference, but
I remember reading that every dollar spent on the space program (Apollo?)
was recirculated in the economy seven times, one of the highest of any
US government program.  I won't even discuss the budgets of the Departments
of Defense or the crowd who runs the social programs ("Uh, yea, the DOD
spends NASA's entire budget every 14 days").  Face it : NASA's budget is
a drop in the bucket.
 
> [...]
 
> Pournelle's statement against the Mars project can be easily turned
> around and fired against hs own pet dreams: If we go ahead and devote
> all the space budget to the establishment of space stations and lunar
> bases, then after thirty years we will have no profitable space
> industry, no planetary exploration, no space science --- only a bunch
> of obsolete "infrastructure", that costs billions a year to maintain,
> and serves no discernible purpose.  Sorry, folks: the commercial
> development of space may be inevitable, but we are not ready for it
> yet.  
 
No, not yet, but only because we have just started.  Once that 
infrastructure is set up, it will be considerably easier to do 
anything in space, including sending complex planetary
probes, doing space science, whatever.  I know you are ignoring the
information industries in this discussion, but consider the comsats
which could be orbited : 100m dishes, 1E6 separate channels, . . .
The Dick Tracy wrist radio becomes a reality, and with it another
quantum leap in the information industry. The applications for 
search & rescue and location-finding alone almost makes the infrastructure
worth it.  Powersats could, with a few years investment, be a paying
proposition, but only by making maximal use of extraterrestrial 
materials - there's that infrastructure again.  I really don't want to
mention this, but just about any space-based components of SDI would
benefit from the existance of a permanent presence in space.
 
In conclusion, you are basically correct : space based manufacturing
will not be economical for at least the next thirty years.  But the
thirty after that, watch out!
-- 
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada      
 
Arthur C. Clarke's Law : 
  It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.

Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!ucbvax!SAIL.STANFORD.EDU!REM%IMSSS
Subject: What we should do in space during next 30 years?
Posted: 21 Feb 87 01:16:14 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
<KFL> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:43:51 EST
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <[email protected]>
<KFL> Subject: Reply to massive missive - part I of IV
 
<KFL>   What IS your space development plan?
 
    If you mean a fully documented fully detailed professional report,
it's not worth my time/energy since I don't have the power to get
anybody important to seriously consider it. If you mean general ideas
about what directions we should go: 

 (1) Habitat in space, initially like the USSR is doing, but eventually
      like the new habitat in the "New World" (America) where people
      actually live there forever (have children there, grandchildren, ...)

 (2) Exploring: Moon, planets and their moons, asteroids, comets,
      interstellar gas, other stars and their planets etc. eventually.

 (3) Observing with various kinds of telescopes in space: everything
      there is to see out there; each new instrument discovers new kinds
      of objects which can then be studied in detail; we can't predict
      what we'll want to observe the way we can predict what we'll want
      to explore.

 (4) Science in absense of overwealming gravity, new subtle effects we
      can't observe on Earth because they are smashed by gravity, but in
      space we can perform delecate experiments where uncomputable
      effects from basic physical law causes previously unknown things to
      occur. Perhaps percolation, fractals, equilibrium, and other topics
      could be studied intensely looking for unexpected results.

 (5) Exotic (foreign = non-Earth) material usage. As we explore the
      material bodies in the Solar System in (2) above, we watch for any
      significant deposit of any material we might be able to process
      into useful form, then we develop the engineering and the logistics
      for preliminary use of these materials. Some will peter out, but
      others will become great mining operations like the Diamonds of
      South Africa or the coal of W.Va.

 (6) New propulsion and energy-conversion technologies. Even before we
      have an immediate practical use for antimatter or whatever, we
      should do preliminary development of the technology, including
      actual missions that use the newly-developed technology as an
      auxilary propulsion or energy system to evaluate it in use. Later
      when we need to divert an asteroid or comet from striking Earth or
      other populated area, or when we want to send a 0.5 C probe to
      Alpha Centauri, we'll have some technologies at hand to choose from
      instead of having to develop the technology as part of the mission
      (we still need to refine the technology, but if the basic
      technology is developed already we might be able to do the refining
      in just a couple years in parallel with the rest of mission planning).


Newsgroups: sci.space
Path: decwrl!decvax!ucbvax!AMES-PIONEER.ARPA!eugene
Subject: Next 30 years in space (try this again)
Posted: 23 Feb 87 17:56:48 GMT
Organization: The ARPA Internet
 
{Nice to see people start to summarize!}
 
    The person who suggest this topic did not summarize, but I can see
I have a much different view, these are only my opinions, so send flak
to me, not the space-digest. 
 
    The thing I wish we could spend more money for would be a
comprehensive SETI program.  I think the biggest question we could
answer about space is not how to go live it, but whether we are alone
in the Universe or not.  To learn we are not alone would overshadow
any manned-space effort we could do in this solar system in the
forseeable future including a manned landing on Charon (Pluto's moon).

    This would really have to be a long term effort, and not one which
provide immediate spinoff, but I leave it for everyone on the net to
imagine the consequences. (For those on the Usenet, I can point to the
initial discussion on Carl Sagan's fiction in CONTACT and the
discussion about Pi, a digression).  A signal leaving (Earth) right
now will travel farther than any ship we could construct in the next
hundred years (probably). 
 
    I would like to see a greater unmanned program, both in the
orbital and planetary (especially for the science) arena.  Man-rate
(people-rated?) flight systems are an order of magnitude more
expensive than un-manned systems, and there's lots of work to be done.
I know this argument has progressed on the net before, so I won't say
anymore than it's amusing to see people who work on things like
robotics/computers push for getting people into space (sort of cutting
one's own throat in some ways). 
 
    Lastly, I think we will continue to need a manned (personned)
program to do those things which electronics can't provide.  We should
certainly explore our solar system (in crewed flight), have space
stations, and so forth.  Many excellent proposals out there.  We
should do so, however, thinking about the consequences of doing so,
and not just want only dumping radioactive wastes, say on the poles of
Venus, or whatever. The people who do this exploration will be a
special breed.  We will probably lose a few more, this is inevitable,
like colonizing the West, let's hope we don't make some of the same
mistakes. 
 
--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  [email protected]

  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

From: [email protected] (Craig Milo Rogers)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: A New Age of Discovery -- The Space Frontier
Date: 30 Oct 87 23:19:01 GMT
 
    The Planetary Society and the Division of Planetary Science of the
American Astronomical Society invite you to attend a public lecture by
Dr. Thomas O. Paine, "A New Age of Discovery -- The Space Frontier",
introduced by Dr. Carl Sagan, President of The Planetary Society. 
 
    The lecture is Monday, Nov 9, 1987, at 8:00 PM in the Kuiper Room
of the Pasadena Convention Center, 300 E. Green Street, Pasadena. 
 
    Admission is free.  [Parking is not -- CMR]
 
    As humankind extends the boundaries of the space frontier, we are
poised on the edge of the next age of discovery.  Like the expansion
across the oceans of Earth five hundred years ago, our species is once
again beginning to feel the pull of the "exploration imperative" --
across the oceans of space. 
 
    On this occasion Dr. Paine will share his vision of the destiny of
Earth's people, painting a vivid picture of where humankind will be in
the next century. 
 
    Dr. Thomas O. Paine, member of the Board of Directors of The
Planetary Society [and active in the National Space Society, too], was
NASA Administrator between 1968-1970 when the first seven Apollo
missions flew.  As Chairman of the National Commission on Space, he
led the effort to create a "bold agenda to carry America's civilian
space enterprise into the 21st century".  The resulting Commission
report, "Pioneering the Space Frontier", presents a vision and a plan
for our next fifty years in space. 
 
    [Editorial:  Although the Commission completed its report in 1986,
the President's staff refused to forward it to President Reagan for
consideration.] 
 
    I just received this announcement in the mail, courtesy the
Planetary Society. 
 
					Craig Milo Rogers