Xref: utzoo sci.space:10581 sci.space.shuttle:2837 Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.space.shuttle Path: utzoo!henry From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) Subject: Re: Civilians in space (Was Re: First concert from space--update) Message-ID: <1989Apr7.212557.6479@utzoo.uucp> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology References: <1885@randvax.UUCP> <1529@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7 Apr 89 21:25:57 GMT In article <11002@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >... In particular, he believes that we >ought to consider broadcasting entertainment spectacles such as rock concerts >from the space shuttle... Not precisely right; what I believe is that we should consider not *forbidding* others from doing so, provided they can pay a fair price for it. This is supposed to be the "free world", remember? Where most commercial activity is undertaken by individuals, not by the government, and usually without having to beg permission first? >... 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... Who defines "most efficient"? Given that these missions *are* very costly, especially on US launchers, should not some weight be given to the ability of the would-be launchee to pay for it? Don't you think that public support for the shuttle would be higher if there was some chance that a mere mortal could get to fly on it? (The old idea of a "shuttle lottery" had merit.) Should "most efficient" be defined the democratic way -- popular vote -- or by Mama Knows Best? (If the latter, who gets to be Mama?) >I consider media events such as rock concerts to be a frivolous waste of >precious technology. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how much money goes into silly media events, money that could go into some truly *worthy* cause? "Worthy" as defined by us, of course. Who defines what's a "frivolous waste" and what isn't? >...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. Yeah, isn't it dreadful how that propaganda is being taken at face value by gullible people like France, Britain, Austria, Japan, Indonesia, ... all of whom are negotiating to take the Soviets up on the offer. And by India, which is paying for commercial launches on Soviet boosters. And by Payload Systems, which is paying for launch of a microgravity payload to Mir in a few months. Amazing how convincing that propaganda is; it seems to have convinced the Soviets too. >> 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... > >Did you count development costs on the back of your envelope? Did you place a >value on displaced scientific research? What development costs? The hardware is 20 years old and long since paid for. What displaced scientific research? Soyuz can hold either two or three crew; almost certainly paying passengers will simply go up as a third crewman on a flight that would normally have carried two. (I greatly doubt that the Soviets are so hungry for cash that they'll displace missions they would have flown anyway.) >Well, perhaps it is the 'back-of-the- >envelope' method that has turned the Soviet economy into such a roaring >success. ;-) Perhaps it is the 'back-of-the-envelope' method that has turned the Soviet space program into such a roaring success. It certainly seems to work better than the US's 'paperwork-by-the-kiloton' method. >>... 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... Again I say: nonsense. Space activity is a minute fraction of the US government budget, far less expensive than many other activities. Again I say, more explicitly: what is lacking is not resources, but will. The US could triple its spaceflight funding without measurable impact on the budget, if the will was there. It's not. >> 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? Nope. SCC is the US marketing rep for unmanned launches, Soyuz launches, space on Mir, tours of Baikonur, you name it. Almost everything except Soyuzkarta earth-resources images. >>>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... > >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? ... In a word, yes. Look up the history of Astrotech, for starters. It wasn't the only one, either. As I recall, there were two bids that got as far as formal proposals (which NASA sat on until they died) and several informal expressions of interest (including at least one from Boeing, which has wanted to get into the spaceflight business for a long time). >...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... So what? You can make lots of money selling services to the government, even services nobody else would buy. Ask any defence contractor. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu