Plain talking on the Hill

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Allen Thomson wrote:

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

Why is that a justification? There's a human impulse to ****; does that
mean the government should run whorehouses?

I thought that was the IRS.

(Actually the IRS almost faced that problem with Mustang Ranch in NV at one
point. :-)



Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
Allen Thomson wrote:

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

Why is that a justification? There's a human impulse to ****; does that
mean the government should run whorehouses?

Yes. Instead of outlawing prostitution, why not turn to bureaucratic
red-tape and inefficiency to slow it down? They could demand than male
customers be tested for AIDS and hepatitis.

People who sneer at the idea of returning to real space exploration
because they somehow find it a distraction from encouraging commercial
space development are missing an opportunity to encourage both.

Somebody has to launch pieces of interplanetary ships into LEO to be
assembled. Somebody had to ferry ctews and supplies to these ships
when they are ready for launch and return them to Earth when they
return from their voyages. It seems to me that a program of
exploration would be just as sound a core market for a commercial
launch industry as--say--the air mail was for commercial aviation.

"the primary reason for human exploration is the
impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal"

That's nonsense - the primary reason for human exploration is
utilitarian and always has been. Thinking otherwise is falling for
centuries of self-serving P.R. from the explorers themselves. You
have to accept that as the reality it is, and -then- make your pitch.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message ...
"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...
flight goals." In addition, Griffin, Huntress and Murray agreed that,
"the long-term goal of the human space flight program should be
getting to Mars

Let me just point to fundamental omission in this whole discussion. They
never gave a reason why theyd want to "get to Mars".
If its just for the heck of it, we could as well just stop here.

To 'expand our boundaries' would be my intuitive answer. We know we can do
it, but that's not the same as actually doing it.

But you're right. I'm much more interested in getting private companies into
space then moving beyond Earth orbit. Once private enterprise gets involved,
things will move along alot quicker and a lot more people will get the
chance to go into space. An analogy would be airlines, which quickly turned
flying into something extraordinary into an everyday event which is
extremely safe. I envision something similar with space travel.

Save, of course, that space travel doesn't provide a service that
everyday people want to buy.

People
aren't travelling to anyplace worth going to for the money, nor
exploring much space.


We're exploring a ton of the solar system with probes, getting lots of
nifty info. We're just not going there in person.

If space tourism became a reality the same type of development would still
happen: spaceships would become commonplace and cheaper and better and
safer. Access to space will become cheap because of economies of scale,
which can't be obtained with the current launch rates.

But it won't. It's too expensive and most people aren't interested.


Only commercial enterprises can
shell out the money and justify the capital expenditure in the long run.

Where would the profit stream come from?

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message ...
Allen Thomson wrote:

Didn't they give a reason in "the primary reason for human exploration
is the impulse to explore, rather than any more utilitarian goal -
although there can be collateral benefits..." ?

Why is that a justification? There's a human impulse to ****; does that
mean the government should run whorehouses?

Paul

Yes. But that's a whole other group....

I have stated my plan several times in this newsgroup, so people are bored
with reading it. Send robots to the moon to build a hotel out of local
resources. By the time they get done, we'll have a hotel, mining, and
manufacturing. Send some of the robots in the same spaceships you'll send
humans in. That way your spaceships will be tested before you send humans.
The hotel can be used for more than joy-riding tourists. It can be used for
astronauts, scientists, and businessmen.


We've discussed this, Mike. The robots don't exist and would have to
be developed at huge cost; deployed at huge cost. The techniques for
low-gravity airless mining, refining, and manufacture do not exist.
Even if the hotel existed, how would people get there inexpensively?
What would they do when they got there? Etc. etc.

(Mark Whittington) wrote:
People who sneer at the idea of returning to real space exploration
because they somehow find it a distraction from encouraging commercial
space development are missing an opportunity to encourage both.

How can we return to something we have never had?

Somebody has to launch pieces of interplanetary ships into LEO to be
assembled. Somebody had to ferry ctews and supplies to these ships
when they are ready for launch and return them to Earth when they
return from their voyages. It seems to me that a program of
exploration would be just as sound a core market for a commercial
launch industry as--say--the air mail was for commercial aviation.

Ah, now it's clear, you confuse flags 'n footprints for exploration.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.