Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!slb-doll.CSNET!dietz
From: dietz@SLB-DOLL.CSNET (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re:  (teleoperators)(Boskone Panalist, etc.)
Message-ID: <8603181313.AA04373@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Tue, 18-Mar-86 07:10:57 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8603181313.AA04373
Posted: Tue Mar 18 07:10:57 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Mar-86 02:59:00 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 43

>> The question is what do we need to do NOW
>> so that in 20 years we will be ready to build the lunar mines
>> and solar power satellites.

>I think Paul's point is that none of these things will be economically
>viable in 20 years anyway, Shuttle, Space Station, or TAV
>notwithstanding. ...   But his point
>is, given that you're going to wait 25-50 years anyway, why not do a
>Manhattan project in robotics right now, as opposed to launching
>essentially uneconomic Shuttles?

I think my point was that given reasonable projections for launch costs
extensive lunar mines/powersat construction in 20 years will not be
feasible without extreme use of teleoperators manufactured primarily
from lunar material.  A lunar base in 20 years seems more feasible
(and would probably be necessary even with teleoperators) if launch
costs can be brought down by a factor of (say) 10.  In 20 years we
can reasonably expect some sort of TAV/HOTOL or second generation shuttle
and a range of unmanned launch vehicles.  If a lunar base is built
it would certainly use some lunar materials, and it could pay to extract
lunar oxygen on a small scale for rocket fuel.

We probably don't need a Manhattan project in robotics -- the goal is
too ill-defined and, besides, NASA's contribution would be small
compared to the amount already being spent on earth-based robotics.
I think what we need now is to get NASA out of the trucking business
and into the long-term R&D business.  Launchings and space operations
should be done by private firms, and their feedback should help guide
NASA in what technologies it develops.

> We can argue that the SPS study, for example, left out
>some crucial stuff -- it didn't count the environmental cost of coal,
>for example (just as the anti-nukes don't; but any Canadian will give
>you an earful about the environmental costs of coal, since Canada
>bears the burden of acid rain).

I'll wager that the acid rain problem will be solved within 20 years.
There are a lot of technologies being explored to clean coal before
it is burned, to burn it more cleanly (fluidized bed combustion or
integrated gas combined cycle) or to scrub the exhaust.  Current power
plants are not near their thermodynamic efficiency limits, and cogeneration
can be profitable.  The CO2 problem won't go away, but it doesn't make
sense for the US to sacrifice on that score if no one else does.