Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rice!uw-beaver!uw-larry!szabonj
From: szabonj@uw-larry (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Message-ID: <99@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 89 05:18:55 GMT
References: <6145@thorin.cs.unc.edu> <1989Jan15.095906.18357@utzoo.uucp> <92@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1989Jan18.043708.27547@utzoo.uucp> <93@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1989Jan20.184633.8392@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Reply-To: szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: U of Washington, CSCI, Seattle
Lines: 63

In article <1989Jan20.184633.8392@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I thought you supported space science, or are you not considering exploration
>of the lunar surface to be "worthwhile"? 

Yes, I support *realistic* space science, such as a Lunar Polar Orbiter.
This will cost at least 100 times less than a lunar base, and be able to 
measure far more territory.   

>Please explain what is found on,
>say, Mars to have made the Viking landers "worthwhile". 

Tons of scientific data.  Theories ranging from nuclear winter to the Ozone
Hole to the greenhouse effect have been helped enormously by the data from
Mars.  (Nuclear winter theory was directly inspired by Martian duststorms).
The search for life informed SETI.  We found out that Mars used to have 
running water.  This greatly increases the chances of ore-forming processes 
similar to those on Earth--and absent, on, for example, the Moon.  Further 
observations may well point us to specific concentrations of valuable 
minerals.  There were also numerous technological spinoffs, both for Earth 
and future space industry.

>Most supporters of space
>settlement consider it worthwhile for reasons other than short-term profit.

A lunar base is inadequate by several orders of magnitude for either economic
or scientific profit, short or long term.

>>... In fact, both the Moon and Mars might turn out to be terrible 
>>places to build space industries and settlements or to provide material
>>for same.
>
>I don't think any serious space enthusiast is making more favorable
>assumptions than the above.
    
Then why all the obsession with spending hundreds of billions to send
people there, when we can find out far more in far more many places,
for far less?

>The notion that industry would need $100+ billion to set up a lunar
>mining site is laughable.  

I have never seen any reasonably complete speculation that it could be
done for any less, public or private, with "current technology".
We need research on how to port machinery and processes into a low-gravity, 
vacuum environment.  We should spend some money *now* to find out how
to do this, along with the many other tasks involved in space settlement,
and more basic technological issues.  We should look before we leap; it 
makes leaping quite a bit easier.

>the relevant competition is
>Earth, not the asteroids

The relevant competition *is* the asteroids, when funding is cut from
asteroid-exploration missions to fund the gargantuan sums needed for a 
space station, lunar base, or similar manned project.  

>Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A 
>toast to comrade Van Allen!!" 

This is beyond the bounds of rational argument.  


Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu