🚀 go-pugleaf

>From: cs.utexas.edu!sm.unisys.com!csun!polyslo!jmckerna@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu 

>The point I've reiterated for three postings now is that manned space R&D is
>important, so if the money can be found it must be persued, even though it
>is much more expensive than unmanned. Unmanned space R&D is just as important
>and so must be persued too, though with less money because a productive
>program requires less.
>John L. McKernan.                    Student, Computer Science, Cal Poly S.L.O.

This seems like a reasonable argument, though the precise numbers are open
to debate. I would like to see a slightly larger percentage spent on
unmanned exploration, but the US is under intense pressure to catch up to
the USSR in manned exploration. (Usually not stated is the point that there
may be certain situations in which it makes the most economic sense to
have few or no launches for an extended period in order to concentrate on
the development of better technologies, with time for learning by experience
later on. Humans are generally impatient, and want some kind of results NOW,
if not sooner.)

A problem arises when things are set up so all launches are manned launches,
to keep the astronauts occupied and to further justify manned launches. This
was largely the case before the Challenger explosion, the result being that
exploration, military, and communications payloads were dependent on manned
launches. I hope this is less true now. I think it could be argued that
manned exploration for the time being should concentrate on adapting humans
to space and on things that humans can do more efficiently than remote
devices. Manned space travel at present is largely an investment in 
developing an expanded capability for more extensive missions in the future.

A question to those who feel that all current space exploration should be
unmanned: The US and the USSR have both sent out a fair number of unmanned
scientific probes, but it is my impression that the US is ahead, or at
least even, on the development and deployment of advanced scientific probes.
On the other hand, the USSR has placed a much greater emphasis on manned
missions, and many people claim that the US is "hopelessly behind" in
space exploration, citing as their chief argument the higher average human
occupation of space by the Soviets. Is the USSR wasting its money? And if
manned exploration for its own sake is insignificant, is the US really
not all that far behind?

A further philosophical question: Postulate some group (the USSR,
extrasolar aliens, etc.) which through exploration has acquired all the
information on space that US space science would be likely to obtain
in the next century or two. Assume this group is willing to sell this
information to the US at a rate far lower than the cost for the US to
obtain it by actual exploration, so low that it would not place any
strain on the US budget. Further assume that the US has agreed to buy
this information. Now, what should be the future course of action for
the US? Possibilities:
   1) Cancel future US exploration to save money.
   2) Buy the information, but continue to explore, just to have something
      to do, or to prove that we can do it.
   3) Concentrate on human presence in space and/or exploitation of space
      resources.

This is just a question about what people would prefer if the acquisition
of information were no longer an issue. Given these conditions, I think
I would vote for (3).
                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov