X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from hogtown.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl@andrew.cmu.edu (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/ocJRS1e00WBwQE0E4Z>;
Wed, 12 Jun 91 04:12:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4cJRRwG00WBwEDyU5X@andrew.cmu.edu>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
From: space-request+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
To: space+@Andrew.CMU.EDU
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 91 04:12:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V13 #633
SPACE Digest Volume 13 : Issue 633
Today's Topics:
Re: lifeboats....ACRV
Summary of 5/20 Space News (Fred Funding)
Re: Bootstrapping (Was: Re: S.E.T.I. Who can give me any reasons ...)
Re: Keck (was Re: Privatization)
Re: lifeboats
Re: Babies in Space
Re: Privatization
Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?)
Administrivia:
Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
space+@andrew.cmu.edu. Other mail, esp. [un]subscription requests,
should be sent to space-request+@andrew.cmu.edu, or, if urgent, to
In article <12761@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
> While I appreciate others supporting my position, I doubt that it could
> be done THAT cheaply, but it is feasible to get a "permanent" manned
> presence in space NOW if the governments can be kept out of interference.
All this talk of "government interference" and "private enterprise" reminds
me of a discussion I used to have with a co-worker. He was pretty extreme
in his viewpoint that government should get out of everything. Ultimately,
I came to the conclusion that he held those political views primarily because
he wanted to get out of paying taxes. In any case, those discussions
provided a good paltform for exploring the influence and interference
of the governement and how they affect the actual cost of programs.
There are two basic points that I would like to make that have relevance
to this pontification of the virtues of private industry in space.
1. Private industry does not always do something more efficiently.
This may come as a surprise to some of you, but it's true. As
an example, consider this: private insurance companies end up
paying out benefits on their policies at the rate of about 80
cents on the dollar (varies from company to company). Medicare
and Medicaid are actually much more efficient. They pay out
rougly 96-98 cents in benefits for every dollar they receive.
My understanding is that the more comprehensive Canadian health
care program has a similar efficiency.
It is fairly obvious that NASA is a very inefficient organization.
However, you simply can't use the argument that private industry
is always more efficient to justify a position that private
could provide all the same services as NASA at the same cost.
There isn't a private company tha does all the things NASA does
to compare NASA to. If you want higher efficiency, you can
probably get it by reforming NASA. There is no guarantee at all
that you can get it by forming a separate private enterprise.
2. There seems to be little interest on the part of private industry
in developing space. I say this for a number of reasons, but the
most important one is that industry has neither made a substantial
investment in space infrastructure, nor has it made any really
serious attempts to overcome the regulations you say stand in its
way. The fact is, that aside from a handful of small ventures
which have had little impact, the only infrastructure that private
industry has spent its money on is infrastructure which enhances
existing ground based infrastructure (communications satellites
for example). Private industry has not invested significantly in
launch capability, nor in an orbiting platform, nor in its own
lunar prospecting mission. In particular, private industry has shown
no interest in a manned program.
As for government regulations... Considering that S&L's, Banks,
airlines, and cable TV all got deregulated in the 80's, I don't
see how a concerted lobbying investment by space interest groups
and private industry could have failed. Unless of course, there
was so little interest in the development of space that no one
was willing to invest their money in deregulation... It's pretty
obvious that congress listens to whatever lobbying group makes the
best pitch, and it's even more obvious that NASA is ineffective
(or possibly laughable) as a lobbying organization. Years of
budget cuts are a testament to the latter.
I personally would like to see private industry in space, at least as
an alternative to government programs. However, I am not so blinded
by a love of private industry that I fail to take note of the fact that
private industry is uninterested in space. When the potential to make
an immediate profit in space is already in place, I'm sure private
industry will take an interest. In the meantime, the government will
have to suffice.
------------------------------
Date: 24 May 91 18:12:03 GMT
From: agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hp-pcd!hpmcaa!winter@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Kirt Alan Winter)
Subject: Re: Babies in Space (was: Terraforming Mars? Why not Venus?)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> [any experiments?]
>
> Not yet. The farthest anybody has gone, that I recall, is hatching eggs
> in orbit. Something that has been on the life-sciences wish list for a
> *long* time is to take the life cycle for something like mice from
> conception through to birth, and preferably through at least one more
> generation, in free fall. It's still on the wish list.
I seem to recall an experiment on one of the Skylab missions that involved
minnows (or some other small fish). The adult minnows didn't do too well
with weightlessness (swam around in little loops), but the offspring that
