Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!iham1!spock
From: spock@iham1.UUCP (Ed Weiss)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: RE: cost/pound
Message-ID: <490@iham1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Dec-85 16:00:20 EST
Article-I.D.: iham1.490
Posted: Wed Dec 11 16:00:20 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:53:38 EST
References: <715@inuxe.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 63

>>> A manned Mars trip should have low priority.  The following items
>>> are more important:
>>> 
>>>    (1) Cheaper transport to low earth orbit
>>>    (2) Reusable OTV's (robotic or remote controlled)
>>>    (3) Storage areas in LEO and GEO for parts & fuel for OTV's
>>>    (4) A LEO space station
>>>    (5) A GEO space station
>>>    (6) Visits to asteroids co-orbital with earth, if any exist
>>>    (7) A lunar base
>>>    (8) Visits to some Apollo/Amor asteroids
>>> 
>>
>> I think that we (the readers of this group and ME) spend too much time
>>thinking of the practical and economical reasons for space related
>>activities.  There has been much discussion on how to justify our
>>favorite program.  What we need to concentrate on is not the REAL
>>reasons why our program should be funded, but the reasons that will
>>CAUSE our program to be funded.
>>
>>......
>>
>>The purpose of this article is not to say that we should stop thinking
>>of GOOD reasons to justify space programs.  What it is meant to say is
>>that when we try to SELL our programs, we must use some political savvy.
>>REMEMBER that the space budget is not fixed.  Congress can vote us
>>more money if they think it is politically good move.
>************************************************
>excuse me for adding my $0.02.
>
>As much as I love the phrase
>
>"REAL MEN DON'T JUSTIFY ANYTHING"
>
> ....
>
>If we fail to "justify" space development in terms of economics, the
>space efforts of humanity will be nothing more that a series of
>GRANDSTANDING displays of technological prowess, forever controlled
>by the whim of politicians.  However, once working in space starts 
>turning a profit, the migration of the race off the planet is assured. 
>I'll leave it to you to decide whether a manned mission to Mars is more 
>important than developing a transportation system that lowers the cost per
>pound to LEO.
>
>					inuxe!fred
>					
Sorry, Fred.  I don't mean to get you upset.

I think we fundamentally agree.  I think the items you state ARE more
important in the short run and will be better for us in the long run.
What I'm saying is that maybe a GRANDSTANDING display will have the
side effect of giving us a lower cost per pound launch capability,
and other good stuff.

I just seems hard for us to get funding for GOOD reasons.  Good reasons
don't get our funders elected.
-- 

					Ed Weiss
					ihnp4!iham1!spock

					--> Live Long and Prosper <--