Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:24343 sci.space:10386 sci.space.shuttle:2776 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!rice!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik From: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) Message-ID: <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: 30 Mar 89 00:20:15 GMT References: <1885@randvax.UUCP> <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> Reply-To: rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) Organization: Boeing Computer Services AI Center, Seattle Lines: 110 Henry Spencer has been arguing that (1) it is currently possible to send manned missions into space at a profit, (2) the Soviets are already doing so, and (3) there is nothing wrong with sending up nontechnical passengers, as long as they can pay for their passage. In particular, he believes that we ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts from the space shuttle. We both probably agree that space should be developed commercially, but we disagree on how to go about that now. I prefer to limit manned missions almost exclusively to scientific and professional personnel who can make the most efficient use of these extremely expensive missions. I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of precious technology. Henry Spencer responds to a previous posting of mine: > What on Earth (or in space :-)) are you talking about? [The Soviets] don't > need to have the "appearance" of routine space flights -- they have routine > space flights, and have had them for years. I suppose that we could quibble over how to interpret the word 'routine'. There is little question that the Soviets have been exploiting their consistency for propaganda value, as you yourself admit. They have timed some events to embarrass us. I wish that Congress would get more embarrassed, but they seem to have pretty thick skins. As I understand it, the main mission of Soviet manned flights is to explore the effects of long stays in space on the human body. The Soviet government has given the impression that it is willing to sell space on missions--to our embarrassment, since we 'capitalists' don't have any missions to sell. That's neat propaganda, which you seem to have taken at face value. > I don't deny that they are exploiting it for all the political gain they > can get. However, it is a mistake to assume that they're subsidizing it. > I've previously posted a back-of-the-envelope calculation showing that, > at their current prices, it is almost impossible for them to be losing > money on it. I, for one, think they're making a real, cash profit. "Back-of-the-Envelope?" I'm not familiar with that accounting software. :-) Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope? Did you place a value on displaced scientific research? Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the- envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring success. ;-) > Don't you think...knowledge is likely to be expanded by flying a wider > cross-section of people than athletic professional astronauts? How, pray tell? Why would we learn more by sending up poorly-trained people who are less cost-effective at carrying out the missions? If you are concerned about the physical fitness of astronauts, I'm sure that we could find a few flabby scientists to send up. :-) >>... There is >>always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can >>no longer afford the resources to sustain it. >Nonsense. Spaceflight consumes an utterly negligible fraction of the >world's resources, especially when it is done economically and efficiently >(not a US specialty). What is dangerously low is not resources, but will. >In the US, that is. Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. I meant budgetary resources. Space research and development is tremendously expensive. It is a strain on both us and the Soviets. There is constant pressure to cut back on it. Given that our priorities are constantly shifting, scientific research in space--which has no immediate, tangible return--is a tempting target for budget cutters. The environment is already noticeably out of whack. I think that we are going to be diverting major resources into our own survival in a couple of decades. We may need the space technology to solve some of those problems, but it will be harder to scrape up the money resources in the future. >...Remember that [the Soviet] treasury and their economy are one and the > same, so they can count up indirect benefits as well as direct ones. Sorry, but I don't know what it means to say that their treasury and economy are one and the same. They are subject to the same economic laws that we are. What benefits do they count up that we don't? [on calling up the Soviets to verify Spencer's 'facts'] > The [Soviet] embassy could probably refer you to the right place: Space > Commerce Corp. in Houston, the US representatives for most Soviet space > services. Gosh. Space Commerce Corp. You wouldn't be confusing manned missions with satellite missions, would you? I don't deny the profitability of putting up unmanned satellites. That is much less expensive and difficult than manned missions. The fact that the Soviets advertise the availability of manned space flight doesn't mean that they intend to sell it to all comers or that they are making a profit on it. I imagine that they take a very close look at who gets to go up in the limited number of flights that they can afford each year. Unlike you, I believe that propaganda value is the sole criterion for selling flights to nontechnical people. >>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... >Yes, ridiculous uncommercial people like Boeing. And it went out the >window because NASA wasn't interested in relinquishing control, despite >a few encouraging noises early on. I would be interested in clarification here. Do you mean that Boeing, or some other aerospace company, wanted to 'take over' our manned space flight program? I'm not sure that any company, or consortium of companies, has any such desire. What for? They are working with the government, which is the only conceivable customer for manned space flight right now. Who was that stubborn, hidebound NASA supposed to relinquish control to? There ain't nobody there. That's why I called the idea impractical. Only governments can afford to fund this kind of scientific research right now. -- Rick Wojcik csnet: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com uucp: uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik