Aucbvax.5258 fa.space utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space Fri Nov 20 03:31:10 1981 SPACE Digest V2 #38 >From OTA@S1-A Fri Nov 20 03:21:17 1981 SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 38 Today's Topics: space and free enterprise The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle Bibliography on Space Colonization ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 19 Nov 1981 11:44:15-EST From: csin!cjh at CCA-UNIX To: space at mit-mc Subject: space and free enterprise The faith some people have in the free enterprise system (as it might be applied to space) is truly touching. I don't see the slightest likelihood of the current shuttle design ever being efficient enough to support the kind of traveling that [davy] describes, although I'd be happy to be proved wrong. Note that everyone who is currently and seriously involved in private attempts to space is talking about satellites (which, thanks to VLSI, have a very high performance/weight ratio compared to the average human (outside of \very/ special talents)) rather than people. Would anyone care to speculate on what the cost/person would be to LEO if the shuttle were outfitted in a maximum-seating capacity (after all, the Sunday supplements have all been instructed to say it's about the size of a DC-9) and how much it would cost to make this happen in the first place? ------------------------------ Date: 19 Nov 1981 23:04:09-PST From: E.jeffc at Berkeley To: v.space@Berkeley Subject: The fictitious NAA and its Sky Shuttle The NAA and its Sky Shuttle, obviously a reference to NASA and the Space Shuttle, is not a valid analogy. The reason is simple: it is very easy to build a scale model of a bridge out of balsa wood, but you must use a qualitatively different material when building the real thing. In case you didn't follow that, I'll rephrase it: scale is very important. There is a very real difference in scale between the fictic- tious Sky Shuttle, an airplane, and the Space Shuttle, a space ship. An airplane is such a simple device, in its most primitive form, that one can be built single-handedly with the resources available to a single person. Thus, the Wright brothers were able to pioneer in the field without any financial backing. The Space Shuttle, on the other hand, is one of the most complex machines ever built by man to date (even if it will look hopelessly primi- tive some day in the future). The moral of the Sky Shuttle scenario is that space travel would be better developed by tinkers working in their backyards, or, more realistically, by major corporations. However, the simple fact is that the Space Shuttle is too complex a machine to be /developed/ by any corporation existing today. NO company has the financial resources to plunge billions of dollars into something that will take decades to pay itself off. I am willing to concede, however, that once space travel has been FIRMLY ESTABLISHED, private enterprise will be running the space ships under the equivalent of the airlines' air traffic control system, and I do support NASA's plan to eventually sell its shuttles. ------------------------------ Date: 20 November 1981 05:15-EST From: Jerry E. Pournelle Subject: Bibliography on Space Colonization To: A.exp at UCB-C70 cc: SPACE at MIT-MC There is one other book on space colonies and uses of space left out of the bibliography. A Step Farther Out by (ahem) J. E. Pournelle Ace Books is still in print and does say a few things on the subject. Also, the report of the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy is available at $5.00 from the L-5 Society, 1620 E Elm, Tucson AZ 85719; it contains a whack of a lot of conclusions and data on a space plan for the US (produced at a meeting in spring of 1981 attended by some 50 top space people; written up by a bunch of science fiction writers working with people like Thomas Paine and David Crisswell.. ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest ******************* ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.