Conference 7.286::space

    Re: .1 THE UNIVERSE OR NOTHING.
    
     It's all very well to SAY that, and I agree with you, but it does
    not constitute a coherent arguement. People without fervent, heartfelt
    interest in the space program have different agendas. If we are
    to be able to sell the space program, we MUST address these agendas.
    
     WE MUST SHOW HOW A VIGOROUS SPACE PROGRAM FITS INTO THE NATIONAL
    AGENDA. 
    
     More than that, it must be PROVED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
     The "spinoff" arguement doesn't seem to carry any weight, anymore.
    I guess we have come to expect tremendous increases in technological
    capabilities, so people won't buy a space program to give them what
    they expect anyway.
    
     I also believe that exploration signifies a vigorous, active, society.
    And that a civilization that sits back, and rests on its past
    explorations as an indicator of its vigor is doomed to die. But,
    again, this is more of a philosophical arguement. And while philosophy
    has a large place in an effort such as this, it, by itself, is weak.
    
     The country was designed to have decisions be made based on what
    the people perceive AT THE TIME to be their best interests. We must
    show how a space program is in the national best interest.
    
     One way is to put the space program in the position of having to
    show return on investment (ROI). Ken Olsen had to do this to start
    Digital - and he had to do it FIRST, before he got the money.
    
     This is a tough, pragmatic, world we live in folks. And the country
    is in a lot of financial trouble. And anything that smacks of useless
    spending will be axed, and anything that shows promise to the nation
    will be kept.
    
     We need ideas.
    
    
    			Gregg

    
    Re: 306.8
    
    	Gregg, I was going to reply in 306.*, but since you asked for
    it to be here...
    
    	I agree totally with you.  We are in the midst of a very expensive
    project with no clear direction or reason for being there.  And,
    especially important in a democracy, no real backing of the public
    for continuing it.
    
    	While I was rather young, I remember the Gemini and Apollo days.
    (I was a little to young to remember the Mercury...)  People were
    fascinated by the launches and really supported the idea of space
    exploration.  Or did they?  What I think they were actually supporting
    was two things: 1) the desire to beat the Soviets to the moon (and
    thus prove our technology as being better than theirs), and, 2) hero
    worship of those brave people strapping themselves into those tiny
    cans and being hurled hundreds of miles into space.  Did the public
    every really support space exploration per se?  I don't believe
    so with the supporting evidence being the decline in space interest
    after we landed on the moon a few times.  (As I recall, the last
    few Apollos got quite little coverage.)
    
    	What happened to the support?  Well, we beat them to the moon
    and thus "proved our manhood" (sorry, ladies) and showed that space
    flight was not that dangerous.  (It was and is dangerous, but the
    flights went well enough (up to Challenger) to give the public the
    image that hero-worship was not called for.)  What was left to generate
    the public's support?  Nothing, and thus the "ho-hum" attitude we
    have today.
    
    	Enter the Space Shuttle -- that marvelous machine that would
    fly zillions of times each year and bring the price-to-orbit "down
    to earth", so to speak, and revolutionize our activities in space.
    Well, the shuttle's history has put it right into the gray zone of
    having flown enough to be old news, but yet not flying enough to
    provide any real benefits to the common person.  Add to that the
    talks about the very expensive Space Station (with the DoD's not
    so gently nudging into the picture) and the budget crisis and it is
    safe to say that most people feel that our space policy is one of:
    
    	1)  Technology for technology's sake.  Won't fly due to the
    price.
    
    	2)  Space Shuttle / Station as a front for SDI testing and
    deployment.  Not a PR win since the SDI concept hasn't exactly caught
    on with the public.  No coattails to ride here.
    
    	3)  $$$$$s for contractors.  Most of the public's comments on
    this would require a lot of funny looking things in four character
    groupings like: "@*$%".
    
    	In short, there is no reason to expect the public to back an
    extensive space program without a publicly-backed goal.  Mars? 
    Colonizing the moon?  The only hope in either of these, I think,
    is a joint spaceflight to Mars.  And even in this, the real goal
    is not space exploration, but rather demonstrating the we and the
    Soviets can cooperate in something bigger than the Apollo/Soyuz
    mission.  What would happen after this hypothetical mission?  I
    would not be suprised at all to see the public going back to its
    ho-hum attitude once the real goal was satisfied.
    
    	Congratulations if you've stuck with this reply this far.  In
    return, let me add my own feelings about space exploration in a
    few sentences:  *Without a defined and reasonable goal*, I could
    almost care less if the shuttle would fly again tomorrow or three
    years from now.  A saying that I once heard is appropriate: "If
    you have to keep telling people how great your project is, it probably
    isn't great at all.  Once they start telling *you* how great it
    is, its ok."  All I'm hearing is NASA and the industry telling us
    how great it is, not the other way around.
    
    							-craig

  I think the reason that noone is pursuing the topic of this note is
that everyone has been spitting out their frustration and dreams in a variety
of other notes.  People are just too tired to go through the emotional wringer
again.

  Personally, I've just picked up a new long-term view of things and have
a very strong belief that space is where we have to go.  Before, I just had
a general interest and enthusiasm for space exploration.  "Gosh, that's neat.
I wish I could do that."

  *Knowing* that the race's next big step is going into space and starting
to colonize it and becoming a space-faring civilization gives me a certain
resolve (even if I'm wrong).  I *know* that we have to spend the money on
space exploration.  I *know* the benefits will be there.  We'd be at war
with space, and that really taxes man's ability to produce new and innovative
solutions to things.  But man always seems to respond very well.  That
resiliancy (sp?) of mankind is something that I'm betting heavily on.

  But no mention of a reason for getting legislative bodies to vote for more
NASA (et al) funds.  Why?  Because we're not going to be able to give them
any that they'll believe unless they have a basic 'faith' that we're going
into space and that much will be gained by it.

  One big gain that would be picked up by a vigorous (large) space program
is that lots of people would be involved in a very ambitious project with
long-term goals and large, visible results.  At the end of a project, a person
could walk away saying "Hot *damn*!  I did something that made a difference."
Of course, not everyone is going to be able to say that, but there's plenty
of possibilities for it, and some will only walk away with a little smile
on their face, knowing that at least they're not just making money for money's
sake and not having anything to believe in.

  We may have spurts of true interest (like the shuttle in its early days) or
interest spurred by paranoia (like SDI or having the soviets doing stuff
with MIR, etc), but until we have a basic shift in attitudes, no reason in
the world is going to affect the American people.  They're too worried about
getting a stereo or car, or that trip to the Carribean.  No vision.

John

     Re: .4
    
     Interest is picking up, in this note. I think it is due to the
    fact that the goal is to "construct" or "create" sound basic reasons
    for the space program - not wring our hands, and be miserable. 
    
     I have a problem with space goals like:
    
    Colonize the moon, or
    
    Build a space station, or
    
    Land on Mars (joint mission or no),
    
    Because they are "ENDS". Not means to an end. I have to admit that
    I have only read a few articles on the Ride report, but my feeling
    is that the report speaks only to "ends". WHY go to Mars? Why build
    a space station? What good is it? What will it do for us? As people
    - as a nation. The Soviet leaders enjoy a little more autonomy than
    our leaders - if they want to be in space just to show us up, you
    only have to convince a few hundred people.
    
     I like my job, because it allows me to create. I can contribute
    something to a project that is worthwhile (both the project, and
    my contribution). Is there a way everybody in the nation can contribute
    - other than monetarily? Can they be a part of it? Take the risks?
    what can they do? The space program is far too elitist. the days
    when people were impressed by the space jargon are gone - now it
    sounds very trite - it's almost painful to hear. Some astronauts,
    Eugene Cernan is one of them, will tell you to this day that it's
    tough on present day astronauts, because of the instant notoriety
    and celebrity. I squirm when I hear that, because they do not even
    come near to living under such a "burden". All that tells me is
    that the the space community is living in the past, and out of touch
    with the present.
    
     The moon, space station, or Mars projects should be a means to
    an end.
    
    
     What is that end?
    
    
    			Gregg

    p.s. Our legislators will vote for space if they think that their
    constiuency wants it badly enough! 
    
     It is NOT always the legislators job to think up the reasons for
    doing something - IT IS OURS!!!!!!!! As a general observation, in
    lots of areas besides space, the people of this nation seem to think
    that the legislators are supposed to do our thinking for us.
    
     As I understand the Republic, nothing could be further from the
    truth.
    
    
    			Gregg
    

    RE:  .3 & .4
    
    Oh! You are so right.  You bet I did, and can, say with pride "HotD**n,
    I did live thru a piece of history!"  I was at Cape Canaveral and
    its tracking stations from 1957-1969.  I was on the island of San
    Salvador tracking Atlas weapons tests the day Sputnik went up, and
    I personally worked on every single manned mission prior to the
    one that put Armstrong on the moon.
    
    I am very saddened by your comments which are only too true.  Because
    of the apparent flawlessness of the missions, the public lost sight
    of the very real dangers that were faced each mission; and where
    there is no thrill of the unexpected the public tends to soon lose
    interest in what they preceive as "old-hat".  NASA did a very carefully
    orchestrated PR program to build the image of the original 7 into
    bigger than life hero's - and it worked, but it couldn't sustain
    over the apathy that develops around the familiar.
    
    The shuttle couldn't rekindle the fire because alothough it was
    a new craft with more crew, it was still just a craft circling earth;
    not nearly as exciting as going to the moon before we actually did
    it.
    
    I think the first step is the development of a viable long term
    goal or goals and a demonstrated committment to achieve them.  Once
    we have that then we need a carefully tuned PR effort to refire
    the public interest - which would probably only be successful if
    the goals have what it takes to be billed as doing the undoable,
    national pride, and all those other things that have already been
    so well said.
    
    				Bill Williamson
    				(former ZD8W)
    

    Bill,
    
     I envy you a great deal - to have been there!!!! Especially during
    the explosive growth of the space program!!!!!!
    
     This particular dialogue is intended to determine those goals you
    talked about! so that you don't have to be sad anymore.....
    
    			Gregg

    listen to all the people worried about conserving resorces for future
    generations. I expect it will take a lonnnng time to develop
    interstellar travel. the only way to develop it is to venture into
    space, the moon, mars,... there are things that need to be studied
    away from gravity. the farther out and faster we can go will be
    a great stepping stone. who knows what will happen years from now,
    maybe there will someday be a real need to travel to space. what
    if our friend halley's comet decides to make one of it's passes
    through the earth? I would like to think we could divert it or if
    needed destroy it. I maybe wrong but it seams like playing russian
    roulette with these occasional comets buzzing through our orbit.
    what if mankind lasted til the sun was used up. I think they would
    want to be colonized elsewhere. these things may sound far fetched
    or far off, but what could stop it from happening? 

    I've not heard much in the way of reasons...

    We've talked of 'why this note', 'why not this note', 'there are
    no reasons', 'there are reasons but the common person wont understand
    them'.  Hogwash!
    
    An active space program should exist for the following reasons (this
    list is far from complete and may even be incorrect at times, but
    it's a start!):
    
    	- An active space program (ASP) would generate JOBS.  Less people
    	  on unemployment.  The common person can understand that.
    
    	- An ASP would continue to improve the capabilities of weather
    	  prediction and storm tracking, as it has done over the last
    	  30 years. (compare todays capabilities with that of 1958)
    
    	- An ASP would continue to imporve the capabilities of data
    	  comunications.
    
    	- An ASP would help to save lives (see last two) in forwarning
    	  of major storms and weather patterns, etc; ground to air traffic
    	  control and emergency communications, etc; reports of tectonic
    	  activity and the spread of crop desease, etc.
    
    	- An ASP would save money (see last three).  Every time a life,
    	  city or crop is saved, money is saved.  The pay back from
    	  the space program is *instant*, not in years...
    
    	- An ASP would allow the construction of lower cost hardware
    	  (COMSATs, etc) because they could be retrieved and repaired
    	  instead of designed to last *forever*.
    
    	- An ASP would permit detailed study into zeroG pharmisuticals(sp)
    	  and botany as well as other zeroG studies involving metals,
    	  plastics and biological materials.  All this *could* have
    	  big results and falls under the heading of pure research,
    	  just like the SSC.
    
    	- An ASP would allow studies into long term affects of zeroG
    	  on humans as a prelude to long space flights to the planets.
    	  These trips to the planets would begin as pure research and
    	  exploration and become laboratories for practical research
    	  in many areas including botany and mining.
    
    	- SPIN-OFFS are *VALID*!!  If they do not spur an interest in
    	  the space program it is because they are not very good at
    	  advertising and lobbying.  An ASP would result in a better
    	  standard of living, guaranteed.  The valuble spin-offs are
    	  visible on a continous basis and range from the very common
    	  (longer lasting light bulbs) to the exotic (Heart transplant
    	  technology and computers).
    
    	- National security.  We don't have to like this aspect, but
    	  we can not ignore it either.
    
    Well, that's a start.  Any comments?  Any additions?
    
    jim
    

>         If they do not spur an interest in
>    	  the space program it is because they are not very good at
>    	  advertising and lobbying. 

    Bingo!! NASA seems to have missed the point that to get public support,
    you have to get them interested and enthused. They let Apollo over
    shadow all other space activities in the 60s and haven't bothered
    to tell John and Jane Public what they've been up to in other programs
    for the last 25 years or so.
    
    What PR there is centers around the manned program and the more
    spectacular planetary missions. Great for us techies, but the average
    person is probably more concerned about rings around the bathtub than
    rings around Uranus. 
    
    Get the public interested and their elected representatives will
    follow.
    
    There have been a number of programs that had the potential to get
    the public thinking "Gee! That's a good idea" that NASA's PR folks
    completely ignored. Things like ERTS, Landsat, the search and rescue
    equipment now on some satellites, the ongoing development of weather
    satellites. Some people may remember TIROS, but how many would have
    even heard of ITOS, ESSA, NOAA, GOES etc? 
    
    Some catchy names for these things wouldn't hurt either. Its much
    easier to get enthused about Saturn or Nova than it is about Space
    Transportation System. 
    
    Spinoffs... in an old book (1971) on the shuttle program, the preface
    comments that for every $1 the US has spent on its space program,
    it has earned $25 in trade based on spinoff technology (that's a
    LOT of 'Tang' :-). But lets not tell anyone....
    
    I don't think employment is a big winner... most people will dismiss
    it as more overpaid jobs for techies.
    
    Retrieving COMSATs isn't going to buy you much. In fact it can become
    a problem if you have lots of old technology birds up there occupying
    valuable real estate in the Clarke belt. Reminding the public how
    much they depend upon comsats EVERY DAY wouldn't hurt however.
    
    Pure research isn't going to sell much either. But reminding the
    public how NASA research has benefitted their everyday life would.
    
    National security... You don't think the public would like to know that
    their are a bunch of satellites in orbit quietly looking for telltale
    signs of a missile launch or nuclear explosion? I think even the
    most ardent SDI opponents might like to know that recon. sats are
    one of the things that make arms limitation agreements possible.
    
    In this society, quietly getting on with the job just doesn't cut
    it if you depend upon public support. NASA needs to be out there
    'waving the flag' and telling the public how they benefit from funding
    a space program.
    
    gary
                         

	Jim,

	Here are my comments concerning your list.  Thanks for listing them
(even though I disagree with some) to start the debate on "solid ideas" rather
than just philosophical points!

							-craig

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    	- An active space program (ASP) would generate JOBS.  Less people
    	  on unemployment.  The common person can understand that.

	Very expensive in terms of jobs per mega-buck.  Other, gasp, dare I
say it, "more useful" projects (how many bridges are ready to fall down?)
will generate lots of jobs at the blue-collar level, not just high-techy
jobs.
    
    	- An ASP would continue to improve the capabilities of weather
    	  prediction and storm tracking, as it has done over the last
    	  30 years. (compare todays capabilities with that of 1958)

	Not to sound overly practical, but how much better does it have
to get for the average guy on the street?  On my New England news, I can
already see storms in the north Pacific that won't get here for a week.
Would seeing storms *two* weeks out help me?  I don't think so.
    
    	- An ASP would continue to imporve the capabilities of data
    	  comunications.

	Granted, but a huge ASP is not really needed for this benefit.
    
    	- An ASP would help to save lives (see last two) in forwarning
    	  of major storms and weather patterns, etc; ground to air traffic
    	  control and emergency communications, etc; reports of tectonic
    	  activity and the spread of crop desease, etc.

	Quick, send a message to Des Moines over the 38 godzillion baud
instant lasar link that a killer crop disease is here in Idaho and is heading
their way at around a half mile per day! :-)
    
    	- An ASP would save money (see last three).  Every time a life,
    	  city or crop is saved, money is saved.  The pay back from
    	  the space program is *instant*, not in years...

	Now, to get serious and philosophical.  As cruel as it sounds, society
always has to determine a reasonable price-per-single-life.  Unless the price
of the ASP can be amortorized over a *lot* of people, the price is simply too
high.  Spending the money in other areas of "saving lives" (preventative
medicine, etc.) would probably save a lot more people per kilo-buck.
    
    	- An ASP would allow the construction of lower cost hardware
    	  (COMSATs, etc) because they could be retrieved and repaired
    	  instead of designed to last *forever*.

	This is looking only at the satellite cost.  If you add in the price
for the launching, we get into the shuttle vrs throw-away argument.  But that
was already covered elsewhere.
    
    	- An ASP would permit detailed study into zeroG pharmisuticals(sp)
    	  and botany as well as other zeroG studies involving metals,
    	  plastics and biological materials.  All this *could* have
    	  big results and falls under the heading of pure research,
    	  just like the SSC.

	Yes.
    
    	- An ASP would allow studies into long term affects of zeroG
    	  on humans as a prelude to long space flights to the planets.
    	  These trips to the planets would begin as pure research and
    	  exploration and become laboratories for practical research
    	  in many areas including botany and mining.

	Yes.
    
    	- SPIN-OFFS are *VALID*!!  If they do not spur an interest in
    	  the space program it is because they are not very good at
    	  advertising and lobbying.  An ASP would result in a better
    	  standard of living, guaranteed.  The valuble spin-offs are
    	  visible on a continous basis and range from the very common
    	  (longer lasting light bulbs) to the exotic (Heart transplant
    	  technology and computers).

	Questionable.  Are you suggesting that the computer industry will
stop making major advances without an ASP?
    
    	- National security.  We don't have to like this aspect, but
    	  we can not ignore it either.

	I don't think anyone would question recon satellites.  SDI, ah, that's
the subject for a different major flame from both sides.
    

    	It truly bothers me that the fate of the human race (no, I do
    not say this comment lightly) is in the hands of an apathetic and
    ignorant public!
                                                              
    	Of course, I am probably being ethnocentric - if the US is
    unwilling and/or unable to continue exploring space, then there
    are always the Europeans, Japanese, Soviets, and who knows who else. 
                                              
    	I am a purist at heart when it comes to space exploration. 
    To me the money should NOT matter (but I know that's just a fantasy
    for now).  I seriously believe that if we do not start colonizing
    the Sol System, then the other stars, then even - dare I say it -
    the other galaxies if we ar so fortunate, then the human race will
    eventually stagnate and die one way or the other.  
    
    	As Konstantin Tsilovsky onc said, "Earth is the cradle of the
    mind, but one cannot live in the cradle forever." 
                                           
    	Larry
    

    
    Re: .14
    
    	Even if I agreed with your goal, Larry, I would suspect that
    statements like .14 would tend to turn the general public away from
    space exploration, not closer to it.  We need to define and articulate
    goals that the public will cling to, and support, today.  NASA is
    dealing with a public that demands instant gratification and doesn't
    really look to the future.  How can NASA push a multi-hundred year
    vision when they can't even get across a hundred week vision?  (If they
    do succeed, I think DEC should hire their PR department. :-)
    
    	I might be overly cynical, but I'm still waiting to hear about
    a goal that convinces *me* to write to my congressmen and urge them
    to give NASA more funding.  If I'm not yet convinced (being in the
    hi-tech field that I am), I can certainly understand the lack of
    enthusiasm among the general public.
    
    							-craig

    It may seem like a small point but I feel that a positive answer
    to why a space program does not necessarily lead to more $ for NASA.
    
    I may be overly cynical but NASA contracts with the same firms,
    in the same way (cost plus fixed fee) as the military does.  This
    system is BROKEN!!!  Fixing this may be a necessary first step in
    having a successful space program.
    
    Now as to why a Space Program!
    
    I once calculated that the value of pig iron in a nickel-steel asteroid
    one cubic mile in volume (there may be 500 of these in our solar
    system) is $4 TRILLION, yes that is no typo, trillion, not million,
    not billion, trillion.  Now that does not include any "trace" elements
    that may be included (say 100 tons of platinum and/or gold).  
    
    We are all familiar with solar power satelites.  Once you set up
    a moon base (admitedly (sp?) 10-20 billion) each additional satelite 
    is almost free!  How hard would it be to sell free energy?  I know
    there are potential environmental hazards, but I believe they can
    be worked.  (The Pacific Ocean is the greatest desert in the world,
    a down-link in mid-ocean would probably not harm any wildlife and
    we may need the ozone)
    
    The rewards to a soceity that harvests wealth from space will make
    that soceity look like the Spaniards did in the 16th century after
    they plundered all that wealth from the Americas.  The Spaniards
    went from just about the poorest country (just finished a 200 year
    civil war with the moors) in Europe to the wealthiest in about 50
    years.
    
    Tony
    
    
    

	Got a "No more disk space error" in re.10, so here I go again.
	--------------------------------------------------------------

	What we need for an aggressive space program isn't just Goals
	and Reasons to do so. There are many of those. What we need
	is a leader to take up the space banner and make it a popular
	cause and set the whole nation looking and working towards it.

	Every time I think of Reagan's ultra conservative ultra safe
	approach to the space program I begin to boil. He behaves just
	like he is buying a third family car or making an unneeded
	addition to his house.

	He sure as hell didn't seem to have much trouble introducing
	and starting up the SDI program.

	Or Kennedy starting up the Apollo program.  Sure there were
	other things involved like the Russians beating us, but then
	the Russians are beating us again in the space station issue,
	and that doesn't seem to be making any difference.

    ASP vrs ADP
    
    Two things came to my mind as I read and reread this entire note.
    My dad once said, "Son, history repeats its self, not in details
    but in general..."  It is true that those nations whose history
    showed efforts of exploration (exploitation perhaps?) had at those
    times the means to significantly alter their economic distribution
    to the common level and show at least to and for the ruling authority
    a significant cultural improvement.  (We all have heard of the "Sun
    never sets..etc.)  At this juncture in time I would rather be known
    as a nation for the use of the compass rather than the inventor.
     But alas, a previous note has stated the KSC is in decay, the Russians
    have used the basics to launch and man a MIR and our current space
    program has just blown its gasket again.  Is our lack of leadership
    showing only in our space program?  I think the space program is
    just the surface effect of lack of leadership in genral and a paranoic
    commitment to ADP.  I see no leader in the current list who would
    have the guts to propose an interstate highway system for the '60's
    land on the moon by '70's take a second place to the Japaneese in
    manufacturing by the '80's and economic chaos by the '90's.  This
    trend certainly matches the historical perspective.  Why?  ADP.
    
    ADP brings me to the second point of this reply.  The comarison
    of ASP ( active space program ) to ADP ( Active defense program
    If BISTRO::ANDRADE is correct that $1 in space = $25 in benefit,
    then the equasion in defense or current domestic planning must be
    severly negative.  Certainly the fed spending $7-14 bil in space
    does not even come close to the $100-220 bil defecit for the
    last 5 years.  We as a country have been forced by fear and lack
    of strength of leadership vision in facing the "instant gratification"
    required not only by John and Jane Q. Public, but by the shareholders
    and defense establishment into the wrong priorities for the wrong
    reasons.  Our dollar is weakened on the world market because of
    the paper panic.  But we are supposed to believe we can afford to
    give Mexico a $10 billion dollar interest free loan and not be able
    to afford a $10-20 billion dollar space station whose payback potential
    to this society in ten years is $250-500 billion.  Why do we let
    history repeat itself.  Great nations make history, not watch it
    transpire.
    
    

    Ahhhh Tony, ma main man, you have hit the perverbial nail on the
    perverbial head. (re. .16).
                                                           
    I vote for a probe, to the moon or wherever, whose sole mission
    is economic exploration.  No pure science, no fancy measurements
    just a big beautiful picture of a pure gold asteroid.  Give 'em
    something to pant over, something to set thier greedy little eyes
    upon and lust after, give the vision of MONEY! MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!!
    
    You can all forget about this pure science BS.  You can have your
    human drive to explore and your national pride and your latest Star
    Trek episodes.  The ONLY thing that needs to be done to push the
    space program into a steady drive into the future is a clear target
    with economic profit as the end goal.  The only problem?  We have
    no target (boo hoo...).  The only sector in current American society
    capable of finding a clear target is the US Government and it's
    agency NASA.  
    
    What do I think we ought to do?  I think we should scrap every pure
    science project we have (data transmission, weather forcasting,
    military payloads and other "pragmatic" projects excluded of course)
    and concentrate upon finding "targets of economic exploitation".
    I.E. an asteriod of solid iron, or even better a pure iron deposit
    on the Moon of unbelievable size.  Once you have identified an area
    that can be exploited for profit by the human race, just step aside
    and watch the money mongers scamble onboard the nearest space ship.
    
    WHAT! NO SPACE SHIPS!!!??  THEN BUILD SOME YOU FOOL!  DON'T YOU
    REALIZE THAT IF WE DON'T GET THERE FIRST AND LAY CLAIM TO IT SOMEBODY
    ELSE MAY????  (I just love it when a plan comes together...)
    
    :-)
    
    Rich

   Your pardon, but I don't think that's a very good idea.  If the only reason
for getting into space is to make a buck, then the people who fund space
ventures are going to want to get maximum return on their investment.  That
means cutting corners, wasting lives, what-have-you.  It boils down to saving
money.

  Another down side to what you're suggesting is that all we'd be doing is
going out to rape, pillage, rape, plunder, and rape the universe.  Haven't
we done enough to poor old mother Earth?  The reason that we screwed up Earth
is because somebody said, a couple hundred years ago, "Good Lord! Look at
all the *stuff* that this planet's got!  We can make a fortune if we just
started using it for ____."  And so it went until today we see that we can't
just consume whatever we find without concern for responsibility, etc.

  And so it would be in space.  Someday, space ventures will be ho-hum
commonplace things, and no consumption will be percieved as too large for
a given return.  So let's not start out on the wrong foot and continue billing
ourselves as a disease that consumes all that it can.

John-who's-thinking-about-his-great-great-great-great-grandchildren

    
    I'm not sure you realize how BIG the solar system is.  It would
    be VERY difficult to dirty it up like we have the Earth.  Besides
    any garbage (waste) you want to get rid of can go to the sun and
    be incinerated.
    
    Also, who says a commercial effort would be unsafe.  Higher risk
    means higher pay and insurance rates.  Commercial flying is 
    probably not as safe as military flying, commercial space flight
    should be as safe or safer than NASA space flight.
    
    Tony
    

    There's a minor problem with the slow and careful approach to make
    sure we don't do anything 'wrong', and that's what is sometimes
    called the 'Critical Mass Problem'.  The longer we wait to get out
    there, the harder it will be to allocate the resources needed to
    build the infrastructure nessesary for a space-faring civilization.
    It's the old "Why spend all that money on a {space shuttle, lunar
    colony, space station, planetary probe, space based telescope, fill
    in the blank} when we have starving people to feed?" question. 
    No-one seems to realise that a welfare state just breeds more welfare
    recipients, and there will come a day when we can no longer assemble
    a space program.  Then again, I suppose it will be possible to buy
    a ticket, comrade....
    
    Willie

  Couple points.

  1) The solar system is only large in terms of how we think now.  In a couple
     hundred years we'll be thinking about Dyson Spheres and saying "Boy,
     I wish we hadn't wasted so much of Jupiter."  Obviously this is a bit
     of an exaggeration, but I'd like to act responsibly towards future
     generations. 

  2) I didn't say we shouldn't go now.  I said that we shouldn't be hell-bent
     on getting into space to make a buck and devil take the consequenses.
     That's the impression I had gotten leading to my first reply.

  3) Anti-Soviet tendencies.  Why do we have to believe that it's going to
     be 'us' (whoever that might be) or 'them' (everyone who isn't an 'us')?
     Sure be nice if there could be a 'we'.

  4) We preach to ourselves too much in this conference.  Sometimes I feel
     like a Catholic priest who's being converted by another Catholic priest.
     All this breast-beating and soul-searching is loads of fun, but we're
     not getting anything done.

John

    Well, yes we _should_ watch our resources, and leave something for
    future generations, but if we don't get off this rock soon, future
    generations may not care that the asteroids have been left untouched.
    
    I sort of read the 'make a buck' reply as "We want to go for the
    dream, but if we can give Wall Street a good reason, a really GOOD
    reason measured in terms of large returns on investment (which is
    the only language they understand, so it might be worth our while
    trying to learn it), then they will be lining up in front of our
    doors with wheelbarrows full of the folding green stuff we need
    to build the infrastructure to give our grandchildren a space-faring
    civilization, and ourselves a low-g retirement home."
    
    I'm not anti-soviet, I'm just making the point that if they are
    there firstest with the mostest, you _may_ have to go to Moscow
    to get your passport stamped for that lunar vacation....  Sure it
    would be nice to have "we" instead of "us" vs. "them", but there's
    no good reason to expect that we will leave the world entirely behind
    when we move to near-earth space.  The political and military realities
    don't disappear, we drag them along with us!
    
    re: preaching to the choir.  If you are interested in really doing
    something, write me a note, but be aware that it may involve long
    hours at low (can you say zero?) pay.
    
    Willie
    WOOKIE::SMITH
    

From: [email protected] (Cyro Lord)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: International Space Devel. Conference (1988)
Date: 12 Jan 88 18:57:19 GMT
Organization: Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp., Aurora, Colo.
  
                 1988 INTERNATIONAL SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
 
      Memorial Day weekend, May 27-30, 1988
      Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
 
Travel Agency: 800-451-8097, Mon-Fri 9-5, Sat 1-4 (Pacific)
Conference Committee: 303-692-6788 or 303-388-2368
Stouffer Hotel 
        Reservations: 800-468-3571;  please specify 1988 ISDC!
 
1988 ISDC, P.O. Box 300572, Denver, CO 80218
  
                           OUR DREAM ...
 
    "To create a spacefaring civilization beyond Earth."  In the
TECHNICAL track, you can listen to presentations about leading-edge
aerospace topics.  The SOCIOECONOMIC track considers cultural
relations, business development, and other "human" aspects of a
spacefaring civilization: 
 
	"Space is for people, not just governments and machines!"
  
                    ... OUR CHILDREN'S REALITY
 
    We can make it happen.  From individual initiatives by a single
person, through building chapters to inform the public, political
candidates, and government officials, the GRASSROOTS track shows how
we can make a difference.  People need to know that space development
is both possible and necessary.  Educators can hasten that realization
by incorporating aerospace themes into their classes - not only math
and science classes, but the entire curricula.  They will learn how to
do this in the educators' course, which has been accredited by the
University of Colorado for one graduate or undergraduate credit.  A
special educators' package, including registration, tuition, two
lunches and two banquets makes it easier for them to attend the conference. 
 
    Call For Papers:  Abstracts received after February 15 might not
be considered! 
 
Guest Speakers include:  Steve Wolfe               Art Dula
                         Andrew Stofan             Eric Drexler
                         Dr. Ben Clark             Dorothy Diehl
                         Georgia Franklin          Dr. David Webb
                         Robin Kline (Teacher in Space)
  
    Please print off the registration form below:
 
_____________________________________________________________________
 
REGISTRATION
thru May 1, 1988     NAME (please print) _____________________________
1988  1989  BOTH!
 
Member of NSS or     AFFILIATION (for name tag) ______________________
co-sponsor:
$60   $45   $90
 
If not member:       ADDRESS _________________________________________
$90   $75   $120
Circle $xx. College          _________________________________________
students check here __
ifor half-price.
	                                              ________________
EDUCATORS' PACKAGE,                           day or  |              |
academic credit:     PHONE (_________________ evening | for official |
check here __ to register                             | use only     |
for $125.                                             |______________|
 
 
PAYMENT	Check	  VISA	  MC	  AmEx               Date ___________
 
Exp.         Card		    SIGNATURE
Date_________  #__________________  ___________________________
 
$ ENCLOSED ___________
 
PLEASE MAIL TO:  1988 ISDC, P.O. BOX 300572,  DENVER, CO  80218
  
Cyro Lord	Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp.  2570 Sky Ranch Rd. Aurora, CO. 80011
UUCP/DOMAIN	{boulder,hao,isis}!scicom!cyrill / [email protected]
		"Endeaver to Persevere."
 
    [Disclaimer:  I am in no way affiliated with this group. - LK]
                                                          

    I have been watching the responses in this conference with great
    pleasure! The dialogue is good, keep it up! No matter what your
    position is - state it. Whatever your ideas are - share them.
    
     Your input is of value.
    
     Since all talk and no action is more commonplace than we like to
    admit, I would like to take an action item here. I have been reading,
    with great interest, all of the responses, and collating
    arguement/counterarguement which I will publish in a future reply.
    
     But more importantly, if we manage to build a truly viable,
    defensible, arguable case for an active space program, I WILL DRAFT
    A LETTER WHICH STATES WHAT WE COME UP WITH. I WILL SEND THIS LETTER
    OUT IN A REPLY. I will personally send this letter to all of the
    representatives in my state, and to any of the "L5" type interest
    groups for their use.
    
     Now, the purpose of sending the letter out in the reply, is to
    get your comments and criticisms. I will do my best to incorporate
    anything THE MAJORITY thinks is of value. Obviously, it is hard
    to write a letter by committee, especially when the geographic
    distances are so large. But I'll do my best.
    
     IF THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFEREES AGREE WITH THE LETTER, I WILL
    MAIL (VIA U.S. POSTAL SERVICE) A HARDCOPY TO ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO
    WANT A COPY ( I  am not sure about using this conference for
    diseminating a letter, so I will use the U. S. mail for that purpose).
    
     The letter can be reproduced, and sprinkled out into the world
    as you see fit.
    
     The purpose of this is manifold:
    
    1) To instigate debate amonst ourselves so that WE do our own thinking
    in this world, and
    
    2) Provide a letter that speaks for the majority, which
    
    3) We can use to indicate to our representatives what WE HAVE COME
    UP WITH AS A RESULT OF OUR OWN THINKING, so that
    
    4) This conference isn't all talk, and so that
    
    5) We can feel that we have tried something - done something.
    
    
     If anybody has a problem with this, let me know!
    
    
    		Keep up the good thinking!
    
    			Gregg

    YES! RAPE!, PILLAGE!, PLUNNNNDERRRRRR!!!!
    
    And now back to reality...
    
    Some of you apparently did interpret my note in the proper sense.
    The largest problem we have that confronts us in attempting to go
    into space in the initial startup cost.  My own personnal belief
    is that once the ball really gets rolling, once we have a few space
    stations, a colony or 2 on the moon and even a permanent outpost
    on Mars, THEN we will begin to think of ourselves as a space fareing
    race.  ONCE WE BEGIN TO REAP ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO BEING IN SPACE
    (i.e. begin to develop resources out THERE) THE PERVERBIAL SNOWBALL
    WILL HAVE BEEN STARTED AND IT WILL NEVER LOOK BACK.
    
    I am sorry John but I must disagree with you, you want to explore
    space for the pure intellectual reasons.  To be pure in heart and
    not for the primary reason of economic gain. That in a word simply
    doesn't wash.  You'll never get the financial backing for it.
    
    The idea behind the "greed" note is that once we're out in space
    we can put all sorts of restrictions on the "developers"; BUT FIRST
    LET'S GET OUT THERE!!!
    
    I say again: The best possible tack we can take as a country is
    to devote all of our energies into finding areas that can be exploited
    for economic gain.  Once that's done the "space race" will take
    care of itself and we'll have made the transition.  Once we've made
    the transition and it has become economically feasible to go into
    space then we can worry about the finer points such as over development
    of a given crater or a new high rise ruining the view of the Martian
    landscape.  
    
    Sincerly yours in plunder...
    
    Rich
    
    :-)

>    I am sorry John but I must disagree with you, you want to explore
>    space for the pure intellectual reasons.  To be pure in heart and
>    not for the primary reason of economic gain. That in a word simply
>    doesn't wash.  You'll never get the financial backing for it.
    
  You're absolutely right on the latter.  There has to be a motive that most
people share for it to happen, and only a gonzo earth-type-person would think
otherwise.  It will happen because of money, but if the emphasis is purely
on cashing in, we'll destroy another environment (evidence: strip mining
and high-pressure water mining).  I'm not too worried about the life on the
moon that will perish because of our activities, but getting into someting
in a big way without knowing the impact is just not intelligent.

  Definitely go for it.  I want to be able to go home to Earth someday, too.

>    Once we've made
>    the transition and it has become economically feasible to go into
>    space then we can worry about the finer points such as over development
>    of a given crater or a new high rise ruining the view of the Martian
>    landscape.  

  Another misconstrued point.  I'm not talking esthetics, but actual, hard-core
environmental problems.  Evidence: the hole in the ozone.  We don't know
if we did that one (bad), but if we did, we might really screw things up
around here (worse).  As before, I'm not worried about ozone depletion in
the asteroid belt, but I think you get the idea.

John

    Ahhhhh, are we saying the same thing but with different words?
    
    
    I do have the tendency at times to exagerate a bit in order to
    establish a point.  :-)
    
    Rich

>    Ahhhhh, are we saying the same thing but with different words?
    
  I'd tend to think so.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be in this conference in
the first place.  

>    I do have the tendency at times to exagerate a bit in order to
>    establish a point.  :-)
    
  I think I was responding to the exaggerations.  We all want to go, but
at what cost to our solar system?  To Earth?

John

> We all want to go...

Well, yes, but few of us expect to.

One possible reason that there is little "grass-roots" public support for
a space program is that there is little chance for the average member of
the public to participate in the space program, even when that particip-
ation is nothing more than watching a launch "live", instead of on the
television.

We now know that the space program, as run by NASA, is too dangerous for
the hoi-poloi, who are not the physically and mentally superior members
of the astronaut corps, to participate in. We tried that with a teacher
from Concord, NH, and look what happened.

Naturally, innocent citizens must be protected from participation in
dangerous activities, particularly at taxpayer expense. Risk must be 
limited, if possible, eliminated. Citizens must housed, fed, informed,
communicated to, but, most of all, kept SAFE.

Compare this to the early days of aviation, when it was possible for
almost anyone to go see airplanes close up and meet pilots, and even
be pilots, with little red tape. Becoming a pilot may have been 
difficult and dangerous, but it was POSSIBLE, and even today one can
go flying, alone, without a license. 

Solve the participation problem, and the support problem just goes
away.

John O.

From: [email protected] (Peter Glaskowsky)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: ADAM SMITH'S MONEY WORLD
Date: 21 Feb 88 21:22:30 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 369/6 - Eye of Osiris, Coconut Creek FL
  
    "Adam Smith's Money World", a public-television financial news
show, devoted a show this week to the United States space program. 
 
    There was a recap of the US space program to date; problems with
the space shuttle were attributed to conflicting requirements imposed
by NASA and the Department of Defense, a "shoestring budget", the
requirement that the shuttle program should be self-supporting, and
efforts by NASA to gain and maintain a "monopoly on the space
launching business". 
 
    Not much was said about the Challenger accident per se; it was
pointed out that the Shuttle was never expected to be perfectly safe,
and they left it at that. The show went on to describe the current
status of the US space program (poor) and the status of the foreign
competition (generally good). 
 
    "If you absolutely, positively have to get into space", the show
said, you can't do it here. The Shuttle is out of action, and booked
well into the future once it gets going again. US defense contractors
are beginning to develop a private launch capability (the Titan IV
program was mentioned), but they won't be ready for a while. The
American Rocket Company (AMROC) was portrayed very favorably; there
was a lot of footage of AMROC facilities, test firings, etc., and NASA
was represented as AMROC's main obstacle to further progress. However,
AMROC doesn't expect a launch before mid-1989 at the earliest. The
ARIANESPACE operation was presented as the only real operational
launch operation in the West, but they're booked through 1991. Japan's
progress was briefly noted. China was also mentioned. 
 
    The Soviet Union's successful space program was a major topic in
the show. Once again, the US government was criticized for interfering
with private companies in the US which have tried to get permission to
launch satellites on Soviet boosters. Arthur Dula was interviewed
about his efforts to get the US government to reverse its position on
this issue. He said that the laws intended to limit technology
transfer from the US to the Soviet Union, being used to deny export
licenses for US satellites, should not apply; he said the Soviet Union
has agreed to allow US scientists and military personnel to accompany
US satellites through the launch procedure to ensure that these laws
are not violated. 
 
    There were additional interviews with George Koopman of AMROC,
Joseph Allen and Maxime Faget of Space Industries, Inc., John Pike of
the Federation of American Scientists, and Gregg Fawkes of the US
Department of Commerce. 
 
    The future of the US space program was discussed, with emphasis on
the recent White House proposals. The Space Industries, Inc.
Industrial Space Facility (ISF) was discussed as an inexpensive way to
get the US back into space quickly. The ISF was projected to cost
about $500 million, and could be operational by 1991. While John Pike
of the FAS opposed the ISF (a "questionable" expenditure, quoted NASA
study purporting to show that the ISF was only useful for one
"refrigerator-sized" materials-processing experiment, claimed private
industry wouldn't be willing to finance it without a government
"subsidy"), Gregg Fawkes of the US Department of Commerce supported
the concept (and mentioned a Teledyne-Brown study showing the ISF to
be suitable for many different sorts of experiments). Joe Allen of
Space Industries, Inc. made the point that the ISF was not intended as
an alternative to NASA's larger space station; he drew an analogy
between a motor home without plumbing, and a house "where people could
live". James Rose of NASA and Edward Hudgins of the Heritage
Foundation were also brought in to make favorable comments about the ISF. 
 
    NASA's own space station design was not explored in detail; a few
mostly-negative comments were made (the high cost, ranging up to $32
billion, and the long delay until it becomes operational, possibly not
until the turn of the century), and in general it was not represented
as a Good Thing. 
 
    The last part of the show was a Q&A session between Adam Smith,
John Pike, and Gregg Fawkes. Pike came down hard on space in general,
and the ISF, the NASA space station, and NASA itself in particular. He
made many favorable comments about the Soviet space program. Fawkes
charged the Soviets with offering launch services below cost (Adam
Smith used the terms "dumping" and "loss leader" pricing, with which
Fawkes agreed). Pike characterized Soviet launch pricing as
"promotional pricing", and said they are "just competing" with NASA
and private enterprise launch facilities, and that they would have to
recover their costs eventually. 
 
    A transcript of the show is available from:

          Adam Smith's Money World
          267 Broadway
          New York, NY 10007
 
    Transcripts are $3.00; be sure to mention the date of the show
(2/21/88) and the subject (the space program). 
 
    Standard disclaimers. I taped the show, but haven't reviewed it
yet. Any errors are probably mine, and I have tried to keep my own
opinions to myself. 
 
 Peter N. Glaskowsky, Sysop, the John Galt Line TBBS.  Voice: 305-235-1421
 uucp: !uunet!gould!umbio!pglask                        Data: 305-235-1645
--- TBBS v2.0
 * Origin: The John Galt Line -- (305) 235-1645  (135/13)
SEEN-BY: 135/7 13 369/6

      "To be completely safe, you have to sit on the fence and watch the
    birds." - Orville Wright

    The cover article for this months issue of Scientific American magazine
    is a review of the Soviet manned space program by Sally Ride and another
    person whose-name-has-slipped-my-mind.  I recommend it, as it brought
    home the contrasts between the American and Soviet programs very
    strongly for me.  Nothing in the article is likely to come as news
    to the readers of this file, but having the contrasts so cleanly
    drawn was a little shocking.
    
    Mike Hughes

Which month is "this month"???

In Europe I've only just bought the January 1989 issue and it ain't that.

jb

Probably February.  I got mine last week.  It has a drawing of Buran on the 
cover.  You can't miss it...

Article: 72440
From: [email protected] (Jeff Bytof - SIO)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: A NASA Father Speaks from the Grave!
Date: 10 Sep 1993 23:26:24 GMT
Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD
 
                   January 27, 1958 (Explorer I launch - 4 days)
                   -------------------------------------------- 
 
   Speaking before the Institute of Aeronautical Sciences in New York,
Dr. Hugh Dryden presented his views "as to what the national [space]
program should be, the role of research, and specifically the role of
the NACA . . . In my opinion the goal of the program should be the 
development of manned satellites and the travel of man to the Moon
and nearby planets..."  (Hugh L. Dryden, "Space Technology and the NACA."
January 27, 1958, JPLHF 5-140.)
 
 - Quote from "Project Ranger: A Chronology", by R. Cargill Hill, JPL/HR-2,
April 1971, page 49.
 
----------------
 
How far we have strayed for this pure and simple direction!
 
-Jeff Bytof

Article: 72754
From: [email protected] (Pat)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: A NASA Father Speaks from the Grave!
Date: 15 Sep 1993 14:19:42 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
 
|>How far we have strayed for this pure and simple direction!
 
"Although Eisenhower got credit as the president who gave birth to the
US Space program,  he continued to doubt the value of the entire
enterprise.  The man he named as NASA's first Administrator, was T.
Keith Glennan, a veteran of the AEC and the National Science Board. 
Glennan considered it his duty to keep a close reain on alleged "Space
Cadets" like Von Braun who dreamed of building giant rockets for
manned voyages to the moon and mars.  When Glennan announced the
selection of the first NASA astronausts in the spring of 1959, he
secretly hoped the original seven would be the last of the breed." 
 
For All Mankind, by Harry Hurt 3rd, Page 51.
 
Pat
-- 
  "The greatest mistake you can make in life is to be continually
   fearing that you will make one." - Ellen Hubbard