Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: The Government in Space
Message-ID: <4249@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-Aug-84 19:24:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: utzoo.4249
Posted: Mon Aug 20 19:24:27 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Aug-84 19:24:27 EDT
References: <12396@sri-arpa.UUCP>, <479@ames.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 52

> Many writers to the net, including the one I'm responding to, claim that
> government cannot develop space.  One wonders, in that case, how we went
> in only 25 years from nothing at all to:
> 	o A half dozen moon landings (manned).
> 	...
> 	o A reuseable space plane (Shuttle)
> 	...
> 	o Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit.
> with strictly government projects.

While I, for one, agree that the government has made useful contributions,
this should not be confused with the notion that the government is the
*best* organization for developing space.  The specific cases I have picked
from your list are examples of how the government has botched the details
while getting the basics right:

* A half dozen moon landings, manned.  With no followup.  None.  Mankind no
longer has the capability to land on the moon; it was thrown away after
those six missions.  It will have to be rebuilt nearly from scratch.  The
last two flight-ready Saturn 5 boosters, which could have launched Apollos
18 and 19, are now rusting tourist exhibits.  ARGHHH!!!!!!!!

* A reuseable space plane.  Well, sort of reuseable.  If the engines turn
out to work as well as NASA hopes, despite poor early results.  Of course,
the thing is five times as large as it needs to be, and as a result the
orbiter fleet is about a fifth the size it ought to be.  And it's so
expensive that expendable boosters are still hot competition.

* Regular and frequent manned missions to low Earth orbit.  True during
the heyday of NASA.  Starting to be true again.  How many were there
between 1970 and 1980?

I am not saying that these things weren't worthwhile; they were.  But
uncritical worship of the way the government has gone into space is
grossly inappropriate -- they have botched almost as many things as they
have gotten right.

> Also, as private firms get real experience in space I think you may find
> that they may not out perform NASA as much as some believe.
> For example, the recent 
> Starstruct launch - all of 3 seconds of perfect flight followed by another
> 11 seconds with a failed valve - cost (according to Space Calendar) 3-4 times
> as much as expected and and took 3-4 times as long as expected.

Remember Project Ranger?  Six straight failures?  Of course, NASA was young
then...  Give others a chance to get past their teething troubles before
you judge them.
-- 
"The trouble with a just economy is, who runs the Bureau of Economic Justice?"

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry