Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!tank!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Letter to Congress, et. al.
Message-ID: <13530@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 13 Sep 88 05:45:57 GMT
References: <1365@eos.UUCP> <13294@jumbo.dec.com> <1765@eneevax.UUCP> <13306@jumbo.dec.com>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 47

In article <13306@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes,
in part:
>To the faithful disciples of Heinlein and Pournelle, the scientific
>and commercial applications of the space station are not the real
>justification for the manned program, but merely baits for the
>"congresscritters" and the tax-paying "idiots".  (Many of the faithful
>have stated this quite explicitly in this newsgroup.)  In their hearts
>they don't give a damn about cheap pharmaceuticals or amazing alloys
>or plentiful power;  what they really want from the space program
>is just a chance to go up there.  It doesn't matter that the trip
>will not make them any wiser, or the Earth any richer; they just want
>to go up there, presumably to impress their girlfriends and have
>something to brag about at parties.  In fact, it doesn't even matter
>that their chances of ever getting there are less than one in a million,
>since an essential requirement to be a space enthusiast is the ability
>to ignore any numbers that could shake one's faith in the Dream.  Above
>all, it doesn't matter that it costs tens of billions a year to keep
>their selfish dreams barely dreamable, for they firmly believe in
>their divine right have their expenses paid by those "idiots" who
>dare not share the Dream.

What *I* want from the space program is indeed `just a chance to go up
there'.  But look at the larger picture.  The way we (`western
society', if you want a specific handle: it may not be the right one,
but it is at least close) went from where we were the 1400s to where we
are now is by expending more and more energy every year.  At the rate
we are going, we will seriously damage *something* soon (estimates
vary, anywhere from `too late' to a few hundreds of years from now).

Thermodynamics is against us.  We *must* change our energy usage
curve.  While extrapolation is risky, it is the best predictor we
have.  Extrapolation tells me that our society must move its heavy
industry into space, freeze its output somewhere near its current
levels, or forget about it altogether.  The first option is expensive,
yes, and dearly so, but as I see it, the latter two are worse.
(Similar arguments eventually apply to the population, where the
problem is far stickier.)

In a nutshell, it comes down to survival.  We must expand to survive,
and eventually, we must invade space to expand.  Someday even that
may be insufficient, but at least we personally will not be around
when our descendents get that far :-) .  You may not agree with the
first statement (`must expand to survive'); if not, we have a legitimate
point of disagreement, about which I shall let others argue.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris