Xref: utzoo sci.space:9989 sci.space.shuttle:2510 talk.politics.misc:23303 misc.headlines:7075 misc.misc:5137 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik From: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines,misc.misc Subject: Re: First concert from space--update Message-ID: <10644@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: 9 Mar 89 21:06:13 GMT References: <1885@randvax.UUCP> <10325@bcsaic.UUCP> <1989Feb24.175109.11738@utzoo.uucp> <10575@bcsaic.UUCP> <1989Mar8.181638.1769@utzoo.uucp> Reply-To: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 86 In article <1989Mar8.181638.1769@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >Why [are space flights] "priceless"? The Soviets have had no hesitation in >putting a price on it. They seem to feel that they have enough flights available that >they can afford to sell a few. They're right. Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve short term political goals. Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray. They aren't just selling flights. They are broadcasting a propaganda message. How much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to Westerners? This is not a commercial exercise. It is a propaganda exercise. And Soviet science suffers from these kinds of shenanigans. (The CPSU has a long history of trashing science in the interest of politics.) Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited number. We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need every opportunity to expand our knowledge. We are still in the stage of trying to find commercial value in space research. We don't find out anything by sending entertainers into orbit. All we do is lose an opportunity to learn more about a very hostile environment. I believe that the survival of the human race is ultimately at stake. We might survive the damage to our biosphere and the depletion of our non-renewable resources if we learn how to colonize space. Perhaps polluting industries can be moved off-planet. Perhaps new sources of energy and raw materials can be developed. There is always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can no longer afford the resources to sustain it. I hope that we can make manned space flight commercially viable before that happens. Send the singers up later--when we really can justify the extravagance. We are still trying to bootstrap our space program. >The Soviets already have a policy to the effect that the price is negotiable >if the passenger will be doing experiments that are of interest to them, so >in effect any full-fare passenger is paying a premium for displacing science. Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things. But there is enough work up there so that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments. They, at least, know what they are doing. >Agreed that this was reprehensible. However, it's totally irrelevant to >what I was saying. Senators do not get free rides on airlines. Really? You've never heard of political junkets? :-) What you mean is that the airlines don't reimburse the government for our perpipathetic pols. >>... The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise. >>We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program. The viable >>commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media >>extravaganzas at this time... >Speak for your own country, comrade. :-) Truly spacefaring nations (there >is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes. You insist that the space program turns a profit? Do you have an estimate on how much money it brings into the national treasury? How much do you think the Soviets are making? This is indeed good news. >Please read the following sentence very carefully. The USSR is selling >commercial flights into space, today. This is a verifiable fact; call them >up and ask them. Call up who? Pravda? The Soviet Embassy in Washington? The State Bureau for Never Lying to the Public? That's a branch of the KGB. :-) >At one time, there were people who were interested in taking it over and >operating it as a commercial venture. It's become a bit less attractive >since, but US government policy has a lot to do with that. (An airliner >crash does not shut down an airline for 2-3 years.) The 2-3 year shutdown took place, in part, because our politicians had turned the event into a media spectacle. We've had astronauts die before. Their deaths are as tragic as anyone's, but they're paid to take risks. The point of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and competence of our space program. The public really had their attention focused on that flight. Do you really think that this is the time to send up a bunch of entertainers? Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our space program goodbye. The idea of getting people to "take over" our space program, operating it as a commercial venture, went out the window because it was impractical. It was dreamed up by people who thought that the free market was the answer to everything. Right now, space is a venture for governments, not private industries. We all look forward to the day when that changes, if it ever gets a chance to change. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik