Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!unicorn!n8035388
From: n8035388@unicorn.wwu.edu (Worth Henry A)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: You Can't Expect a Space Station to be Cheap
Message-ID: <1990Nov5.222452.320@unicorn.wwu.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 90 22:24:52 GMT
References: <1990Nov2.235446.19719@unicorn.wwu.edu> <9011030347.AA24173@iti.org>
Reply-To: n8035388@unicorn.WWU.EDU (Worth Henry A)
Organization: Western Washington Univ, Bellingham, WA
Lines: 65

In article <9011030347.AA24173@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes:
>
>And therein lies a large part of the problem. NASA should try and make space
>pay and show a profit. THAT's the way to make it take off. As long as we

    Alas, NASA is a government agency, and as such has little 
interest in, and has numerous disincentives towards, making space pay
(except for its subcontractors ;-) ). On the other hand, an independent
agency exchanging project participation rights and preferential 
techology access to contributing countries and COMPANIES, could be 
structured to make space pay. Such an agency could be authorized to
generate revenues by pioneering space services and even entering into 
joint space-related ventures. Initally, such an agency would be dependent
upon government contributions, but if successful, could later rely upon
revenues and private contributors. If unsuccessful, it would eventually 
lose support and die. In the short term, such an agency would offer
the space faring nations (and the wanna-be's, as well) a more effective
and affordable alternative to NASA, ESA, ...

   Hmm, perhaps the UCB regents could sponsor such an agency
as an spin-off of their LLNL! If UNIX, why not a space station...
with declining weapons R&D revenues, LLNL could use a new line of 
business ;-). And, even if Congress is unwilling to provide funds, 
ESA and Japan Inc. might be interested in a joint effort: 
   
  > the LLNL habitat should fit within the payload parameters of 
    one the Ariane series boosters 

  > HERMES could be used for crew support, and the Japanese mini-shuttle 
    for logistic support ... 

  > perhaps the budget-straped Soviets would like to get involved as 
    an alternative to MIR-II, providing additional alternatives
    (i.e. redundancies) for launch services and a wealth of orbital
    experience ... (MIR-I could even be used as one of the LLNL 
    proposal's seperate micro-gravity labs)
    
   NASA is not the only game in town, if we (i.e. the USA) wait
for Captial Hill, we are going to end up choking on the others' dust 
-- er. rocket exhuast.

>
>NASA needs to be open to new ways of doing things. It needs to comit itself
>to reducing launch costs and opening up markets.
>

    AMEN, BUT...

>>    When FRED is finally cancelled, many in Washington (and elsewhere) will 
>>begin asking why we need the shuttle, yet alone a space program.
>
>Just because somebody questions the Shuttle doesn't mean they question
>the entier program. Some of the most pro-space people I know question
>the Shuttle. After all, why are we wasting the billions we spend on it
>when there are so many cheaper alternatives?
>

    Don't forget the lessons of the post-Apollo era...

    Unfortunately, the program as a whole tends to ride on the "shirt
tails" of the big projects. Sen. Gore, et. al. are already making the 
"I strongly support NASA, BUT -- " speeches (btw, Gore is a leading 
presidential aspirant :-( ). NASA will survive (agencies are never
scrapped outright -- too much pork), but that may well be without any
significant space program, manned or otherwise.