🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Mar8.181638.1769@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:

>Why [are space flights] "priceless"?  The Soviets have had no hesitation in
>putting a price on it.  They seem to feel that they have enough flights available that
>they can afford to sell a few.  They're right.

Soviet politicians, like ours, wish to exploit the space program to achieve
short term political goals.  Right now, it tickles their fancy to have the
appearance of routine space flights when our program is in disarray.  They
aren't just selling flights.  They are broadcasting a propaganda message.  How
much profit do you think they make by 'selling' their flights to to
Westerners?  This is not a commercial exercise.  It is a propaganda exercise.
And Soviet science suffers from these kinds of shenanigans.  (The CPSU has a
long history of trashing science in the interest of politics.)

Each space flight is priceless because we can only afford to support a limited
number.  We know so little about space and its effects on humans that we need
every opportunity to expand our knowledge.  We are still in the stage of
trying to find commercial value in space research.  We don't find out anything
by sending entertainers into orbit.  All we do is lose an opportunity to learn
more about a very hostile environment.  I believe that the survival of the
human race is ultimately at stake.  We might survive the damage to our
biosphere and the depletion of our non-renewable resources if we learn how to
colonize space.  Perhaps polluting industries can be moved off-planet.
Perhaps new sources of energy and raw materials can be developed.  There is
always the danger that space flight will be ended permanently because we can
no longer afford the resources to sustain it.  I hope that we can make manned
space flight commercially viable before that happens.  Send the singers up
later--when we really can justify the extravagance.  We are still trying to
bootstrap our space program.

>The Soviets already have a policy to the effect that the price is negotiable
>if the passenger will be doing experiments that are of interest to them, so
>in effect any full-fare passenger is paying a premium for displacing science.

Even Jake Garn did some 'useful' things.  But there is enough work up there so
that it is more cost-effective to let scientists perform the experiments.
They, at least, know what they are doing.

>Agreed that this was reprehensible.  However, it's totally irrelevant to
>what I was saying.  Senators do not get free rides on airlines.

Really?  You've never heard of political junkets?  :-)  What you mean is that
the airlines don't reimburse the government for our perpipathetic pols.  

>>... The space program is not, and never was, a profit-making enterprise.
>>We all wish that it could be, but it is still a research program.  The viable
>>commercial uses of space do not include public transportation and media
>>extravaganzas at this time...
>Speak for your own country, comrade. :-)  Truly spacefaring nations (there
>is currently one on Earth) can afford to use space for many purposes.

You insist that the space program turns a profit?  Do you have an estimate on
how much money it brings into the national treasury?  How much do you think
the Soviets are making?  This is indeed good news.

>Please read the following sentence very carefully.  The USSR is selling
>commercial flights into space, today.  This is a verifiable fact; call them
>up and ask them.

Call up who?  Pravda?  The Soviet Embassy in Washington?  The State Bureau for
Never Lying to the Public?  That's a branch of the KGB.  :-)

>At one time, there were people who were interested in taking it over and
>operating it as a commercial venture.  It's become a bit less attractive
>since, but US government policy has a lot to do with that.  (An airliner
>crash does not shut down an airline for 2-3 years.)

The 2-3 year shutdown took place, in part, because our politicians had turned
the event into a media spectacle.  We've had astronauts die before.  Their
deaths are as tragic as anyone's, but they're paid to take risks.  The point
of putting a civilian teacher up there was to demonstrate the safety and
competence of our space program.  The public really had their attention
focused on that flight.  Do you really think that this is the time to send up
a bunch of entertainers?  Another disaster with them, and you can kiss our
space program goodbye.  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.  Right now, space is a venture for governments,
not private industries.  We all look forward to the day when that changes, if
it ever gets a chance to change.


-- 
Rick Wojcik   csnet:  rwojcik@atc.boeing.com	   
              uucp:   uw-beaver!ssc-vax!bcsaic!rwojcik