Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!fin!szabonj
From: szabonj@fin (Nick Szabo)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Manned vs unmanned space exploration
Message-ID: <120@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 89 06:17:43 GMT
References: <8902100153.AA02978@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Reply-To: szabonj@fin.UUCP (Nick Szabo)
Organization: U of Washington, CSCI, Seattle
Lines: 55

In article <8902100153.AA02978@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
>
>>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu 
>>The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is
>>important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it
>>is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important
>>and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive
>>program requires less.
>>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.
>
>This seems like a reasonable argument

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????????????????????????????????
Two posters now have advocated putting money in *unproductive* ventures,
for the very reason that they are unproductive, and skimping on productive
ventures!  This sort of thinking scares the bejeebers out of folks who are
considering investing their money in space.  

Space cannot flourish as a welfare case.  Space settlement will not
come about through ten-plus-billion-dollar ventures which lack both short-term
and long-term rationale.  Government-funded, diverse research and exploration, 
paralleled by private use of its fruits, makes both historical and economic 
sense, in both the short- and long- terms.  

Every private industry we have in space--communications, remote sensing,
navigation, etc.--is teleoperated, and is the result of unmanned spaceflight
research. This will remain largely true until such time as the unmanned program 
provides the discoveries (of ET resources) and technology (mining, 
manufacturing, etc.) needed to develop self-sustaining space habitats.

>the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned
>missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in
>space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human
>occupation of space by the Soviets. 

The USSR does *not* place more emphasis on manned missions; they place more
emphasis on space in general.  Their proportion of manned spaceflights is
lower than that of the US.  They send far fewer (percentagewise) missions 
beyond Earth orbit--perhaps a greater emphasis on military (short-term) at the 
expense of scientific research (long-term).   Also note that Soviet
teleoperation is primitive--witness what happened to their Phobos probes.  

> Is the USSR wasting its money? 

Maybe, maybe not.  They are definitely making advances in nuclear-powered
radars to detect our subs.  They have ASATs, an ABM ring around Moscow,
an aggressive SDI research program, and a heavy-lift booster that can
be mass-produced.  If the Soviets are going to take control of space, 
these are the relevant technologies.  Mir is dramatic but unimportant.  
The Soviets are much farther away than the West from widely exploring deep 
space, or settling space on a self-sustaining basis.



Nick Szabo              szabonj@fred.cs.washington.edu