Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!hogpc!houca!trc
From: trc@houca.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: the government against space
Message-ID: <409@houca.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Oct-83 11:59:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: houca.409
Posted: Mon Oct 17 11:59:32 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 18-Oct-83 20:33:07 EDT
Organization: American Bell, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 40

Response to Scott Preece:

Scott - I hope you did not intentionally quote me out of context - if you
read my original note again, you will see that the $10,000,000 would have
been used to "sponsor research into space technology, with an eye towards 
grabbing up some basic patents".  That is a far cry from an attempt to 
"establish a space project".

And regardless of the fact that it might only cost $10 per person, if
those people dont want their money spent that way, how does the government
claim to be justified in doing so?  And even if the goverment is "smart"
enough to know better than all those people, why should it not just take
an "advocacy" stance?  (I would oppose even that, but at least it cuts
the amount spent way back.)  Would you want the government to spend $1E9 
to research astrology or reincarnation?  I agree that there is more validity 
to going into space - but does that justify forcing someone to support a 
"pet" project?

I do agree with you on one point - it would "involve huge legal hassles over
whether [the very biggest companies] should be allowed to cooperate that way."
What is the source of those legal hassles?  The very government that you say
is the only one that could manage to get us into space.  Drop all those
restrictions, and *then* see if there is any interest in a space project,
combining efforts.  If the government *needs* space (as for national defense
purposes) it would certainly be valid for it to tax to pay for it.  But it
should not do it just because the private sector "cant" do it.  In fact, I
would propose a general rule of thumb - any time that a project is too big
for anyone but the government, the government has gotten too big.

Finally, one last argument - that of exponentiating.  Government efforts are
non-profit, and so they can only add $X to the development of space, each year.
Private efforts would be for-profit.  So, perhaps there would only be $.0X
invested the first year, but it would build up.  You know the old story of
the boy offered $1.00 more a day, or $.01, $.02, $.04 .....  In the case of
the government, it is even worse - the boy would just get $1.00 each day,
with few increases, and cuts likely at exactly the points of greatest need.
Would you prefer linear or exponential growth?

	Tom Craver
	houca!trc