🚀 go-pugleaf

-From: szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo)
-Subject: Re: SEI
-Date: 7 Jan 93 09:41:19 GMT

-roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov (John Roberts) writes:

->...SEI didn't sell, largely because of the projected 
->horrendous cost (~$400 billion, if I recall correctly). [liability
->to any mission related to SEI, "camel's nose under tent" effect]

-SEI was the ultimate manifestation of the old NASA/Von Braun style 
-of space development, sold honestly.  We're going to tell you today 
-just how we're going to develop space, out into the middle of the next 
-century.  We've got all the Next Logical Steps planned out, just so.  
-Of course there won't be any technological advance before 2030 that 
-would make our plans obsolete.  Of course we won't discover anything on
-the asteroids that would make them better targets than the Moon
-or Mars, or on the comets, or on Jupiter, or anywhere else in
-space; obviously the Moon and Mars are the Next Logical Steps
-and that's that.  Obviously the commercial and military satellites
-are just trivial child's play against our inspiring and ambitious
-Plan.  Obviously Man In Space is central, and robot probes will play 
-only a peripheral role, and no technoligical advance can change that.
-This is a Long Term Plan, so don't expect any sort of applications 
-or payback, except of course there will be Spinoffs.

That was very well argued - clearly, there are problems with promoting
such a technology-dependent program in such an inflexible manner, and in
failing to more clearly define intermediate benefits and the value of
corollary activities (such as unmanned space exploration and resource
exploitation). Any idea where SEI as a political entity originated?
I get the impression that it came from outside the top NASA administration
of the time.

There's another interesting point - many people who post to sci.space on the
topic of space policy say that the main need is for a single coherent plan
that covers all space activity. But SEI shows the pitfalls of such an
approach. I'm inclined to believe there should be several approaches, 
which are fairly non-overlapping in their scope, but which cooperate
with one another. Such an approach might provide greater flexibility
to deal with new developments. Care must still be taken to balance
long-term goals and near-term plans - part of current activity should
be directed toward immediate interests, and part should be preparation
for future activities. The latter should not be so solid that they
can't be readily changed as new information and technology is acquired.

John Roberts
roberts@cmr.ncsl.nist.gov