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!kcarroll From: kcarroll@utzoo.UUCP (Kieran A. Carroll) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Space Station (continued) Message-ID: <3627@utzoo.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 12:11:12 EST Article-I.D.: utzoo.3627 Posted: Mon Mar 12 12:11:12 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 12:11:12 EST References: <2582@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: U of Toronto Zoology Lines: 33 * responding to Jan Wolitzky:re:government funding Ahem. You seem to be stating that communications satellites were developed entirely as a private venture, and thus are a true example of private enterprise moving into space. Is this strictly true? For one thing, comsats wouldn't be possible at all, without rocket boosters, which were developed for the longest time under the aegis of the government. For another thing (this is where I'm not absolutely sure) didn't NASA, and the Navy and Air Force for that matter, launch most of the early "proof of concept" comsats, and do much of the early research? I beleive this to be so, and also beleive that industry didn't put up a cent of "risk" capital, until after the government had spent enough money to bring the risk down to a level that they could accept (ie. a Very Low Level). Correct me if I'm wrong. This seems to be a classical example of how government can help the country by helping industry. They perform the early, expensive research, that individual companies can't afford. They have a sufficient number of programs going that, even if most of them don't pan out, the ones that do will pay for those that don't. Then, when profitable technologies (such as comsats) have been identified, they're turned over to the private sector, practically as a gift. This doesn't seem to be a valid argument against a space station. Many risky technologies will be able to be tested there, and the presence of men on board will allow for the possibility of repairs to balky equipment, allowing equipment design to be much simpler, and hence orders of magnitude less expensive (presumably). Since your central argument seems to be "if it needs doing, let private industry do it; they've done it before", and since as far as I know, they >haven't< "done it before", doesn't this demolish your argument? -Kieran A. Carroll ...decvax!utzoo!kcarroll