Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!groucho!steve
From: steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: space program goals
Message-ID: <5766@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 21 Dec 89 16:12:32 GMT
References: <1989Dec20.154407.15068@utzoo.uucp>
Sender: news@ncar.ucar.edu
Lines: 29

kcarroll@utzoo.uucp (Kieran A. Carroll) analysed the goals of the
Apollo program into three categories:

	1) "Geopolitical muscle-flexing" (or national prestige);

	2) Infrastructure development for further exploration/exploitation;

	3) Pure, basic, scientific research.

An interesting analysis.  One with which I can agree (at least for now).

For the purpose of discussion (please note), I now hypothesize the 
following:

	1) In retrospect, the national prestige goal was irrelevant.

	2) The infrastructure goal, though laudable, was too ambitious
	   (i.e. costly).  For evidence, I note that the program was
	   cancelled (we may debate the reasons, but had the program
	   been cheap, I believe it would have survived).

	3) Only the scientific goal has the potential for long-term
	   achievability and support.  It may also allow us to
	   eventually achieve the infrastructure goal (at reasonable
	   cost) and, consequently, the national prestige goal.

Comments and discussion are encouraged.

--Steve Emmerson	steve@groucho.ucar.edu