Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!minke!szabonj
From: szabonj@minke (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: NSS Board membership
Message-ID: <107@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 89 10:57:38 GMT
References: <1989Jan22.124441.6014@cs.rochester.edu> <7427@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Reply-To: szabonj@minke.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: U of Washington, CSCI, Seattle
Lines: 39

>
>szabonj@uw-larry.UUCP (Nick Szabo) writes: [in response to my previous posting]
>>Come again?  We should spend more on manned spaceflight *because* it's
>>more expensive?  
>
>Unless you don't believe that manned space technology
>R&D is important to the future, NASA should spend much more money on manned
>than on unmanned space R&D. Please note that since I DO believe in a robust
>unmanned program, I think it would be wrong if space station costs (as one
>example) eviscerated the unmanned program.

Anybody who thinks we have an infinite budget to work with, please make
yourself known so that I know where not to invest my hard-earned money.
It's not a question of "believing" in anything, since presumably we are not
discussing religion.  It's a question of X dollars divided between manned and
unmanned programs.  What allocation is best for our future?   Spending all
or most of the money on one or two large, risky projects, which go nowhere 
but LEO, is the poorest allocation.   Sending out a few probes, while
still spending half the money on thread-bare manned projects, is still poor.
The only reasonable allocation is to spend the money on unmanned projects
(and research), and forego manned projects until they are affordable,
and/or discoveries provide the incentive to substantially increase the
budget X which the government provides.

If it could be demonstrated that manned programs substantially increase the
budget X we have to work with, then perhaps something could be said for them.
But there is no evidence to show this, and in fact I suspect that the
opposite is true, that the overwhelming bonanza from unmanned probes would
greatly increase support and funding of the space program.

>The point here is that the shuttle is a new technology developed by a
>government bureaucracy. Serious problems in such a situation are always a
>definite possibility. 

This is why you don't throw your eggs in one basket.  Throw them in a lot
of small baskets--some fail (Phobos mission), but some succeed wildly, more
than making up for the failures (Voyager).  Nothing can make up for a 
$40 billion project like the Shuttle.
Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu