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