Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!sequent!muncher.sequent.com!szabo From: szabo@sequent.com Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Access to Space Message-ID: <1991Jun17.220510.15128@sequent.com> Date: 17 Jun 91 22:05:10 GMT References: <2980@ke4zv.UUCP> <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> <1991Jun17.165036.6816@iti.org> Sender: news@sequent.com (News on Muncher) Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc. Lines: 72 In article <1991Jun17.165036.6816@iti.org> aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes: >In article <1991Jun17.152849.11430@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: > >>We could also have a thriving space exploration >>and science program if the greedy astronaut programs were not soaking >>up the bulk of the funds. > >In the short run, yes. In the long run we are far better off building the >infrastructure. We need self-sufficient infrastructure, which is what I have been advocating. You have been promoting 1960's tin cans, which have nothing to do with infrastructure or the economical habitation of space. Meanwhile, most of the technology and exploration needed to expand our self-sufficient infrastructure remains unfunded, due to the neglect of the NASA leadership and promoters of astronaut programs such as yourself, greedily soaking up the bulk of the funds for short-term, astronauts-now projects. >Doing so wold reduce costs to LEO and permit a lot more >to be done. Sorry, we have been following your strategy for 20 years and the cost to LEO for astronauts has _increased_, not decreased. Furthermore, over 90% of the self-sufficient industry is in GEO and SSO, not LEO. Putting $multi-billion centralized satellites in LEO is pork barrel, not infrastructure. >Eventually we would get to the point where PhD students could >send their own probes out. That will produce far more results in the long >run than your short term approach. Why do you think I am advocating the development of Iridium-type technology? We need to move towards the next generation of space technology, not backwards to the 1960's. As for the silly "long term vs. short term" rhetoric, decades-long projects that develop little new technology are far worse for the future than quick, short-range projects that advance the state of the art. Worse still are short-range programs to launch a tiny number of astronauts in tin cans by the next decade, instead of doing the hard work needed to develop self-sufficient industries that can be used to build economical habitats over the longer term. >>The Europeans have quite substantial access to space via Ariane and Giotto, >>et. al., with astronauts nowhere in sight. > >And yet they still feel the need to build Hermes so they can have a manned >program. Only as a sad mimicry of the U.S. Europe (largely France) also has its astronaut groupies. Most of the space scientists and commercial space people in Europe are opposed to Hermes, just as most of these people in the U.S. are opposed to Fred. Even as we speak, Ariane 5 is being redesigned from a large satellite carrier into an HLV whose only purpose in life will be to lift two astronauts into LEO. Every nation in Europe except France has been trying to stop this nonsense. Sadly, France has not learned from our mistakes (and their successes). Europe will probably lose its leadership in the commercial space launch field by the end of the decade, for the same reasons the U.S. lost that leadership to Europe in the 1980's. -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Embrace Change... Keep the Values... Hold Dear the Laughter... These views are my own, and do not represent any organization.