🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <211@umigw.MIAMI.EDU>, steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) writes:
> In article <27@enuxha.eas.asu.edu> kluksdah@enuxha.eas.asu.edu (Norman 
> C. Kluksdahl) writes:
> 
> >Paul, (and others against manned spaceflight);
> >Please use a little discretion in your arguements; try not to come across
> >with the attitude of "it's not economical; therefore it's a waste of time
> >to even think about doing."  ...
> 
> I fear Mr. Kluksdahl misunderstands Mr. Dietz's position.  The argument
> as I appreciate it, is not against the idea of manned spaceflight, but
> rather against the manner of its funding.
> I don't recall Mr. Dietz ever arguing against private funding of a manned 
> space program as being a waste of time.
> 
Ah, but I DO understand the position of Paul Dietz regarding manned vs.
unmanned, and the current funding levels of each.  There are LOTS of things
which unmanned probes can accomplish which manned missions are not even close
to being capable of doing.  I NEVER implied that Paul or anyone else for that
matter were totally against ever attempting manned spaceflight.  We can look
at the Soviet BURAN flight for examples of what can be accomplished byh
a sophisticated unmanned flight.  The Solar Max satellite was ailing; the US
fix was to send up a manned shuttle and repair it (but only temporarily).  
My impression of the Soviet program is that they would have either just
launched a new satellite, or COULD HAVE used Buran in an unmanned, teleoperated
mode, to retrieve the existing satellite, which would have been repaired on
the ground, then re-deployed (probably on an expendable).  There is nothing
in this latter scenario which requires men in space, nor is it beyond current
technological capability.

I realize that I walked into the fire, but some things seem to have been taken
out of context.  1)  I admitted up front that economic arguements currently
weigh against manned flight.  2)  I did (IMHO) make reference to the 
'entertainment' factor, which is more favorable to manned missions, but is NOT
by itself justification.  Perhaps I COULD have been more clear in stating that
the arguements were against heavy government funding of manned programs (after
all, what incentive does any government have to make something less expensive?
But that's another subject!).

What I refer to is precisely the discouragement of privately funded programs,
which I doubt anyone should oppose.  After all, if I can gather x Million
dollars, who are you to tell me how to spend it.  Some people, who are very
bright and have good ideas, might possibly be turned off of their dreams of
cheap manned spaceflight.  This would be criminal if they were the same ones
who otherwise would have been the leaders in establishing the desired cheap
access to space, which would then permit massive manned programs.  

After all, "for want of a nail...."


Norman Kluksdahl              Arizona State University
            ..ncar!noao!asuvax!enuxha!kluksdah

standard disclaimer implied