COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	JMC - a belated comment
C00015 ENDMK
C⊗;
JMC - a belated comment

	The argument between Neil Rowe and almost everyone else
has been marred by wishful thinking on both sides in which one
tends to take as facts that which supports what one wants done.

	Rowe would prefer that space travel be impossible or
at least uneconomical so that humanity would concentrate on
getting along with each other and solving what he sees as
humanity's problems here on Earth.  The space fans
want space explored and would like to believe that it is both
feasible and essential for mankind's survival.  Moreover, they
would like to do it now.

	I shall begin by stating my wishes and then what I think
are the facts.  The facts seem to co-incide only partially with
my wishes.

	My wishes are entirely with the space fans.  I want to
see the universe explored as rapidly as possible.  I am somewhat
bitter that the environmental and anti-technology movements
succeeded in slowing progress after the middle 1960s and have
made it unlikely that I, not professionaly involved in space,
will be able to experience space travel.  I still have hopes of
living long enough to visit an orbital resort hotel.  However,
I would favor spending money on space exploration even knowing
it wouldn't bear fruit in my lifetime.

	Specifically, I favor spending about three times what we do now
on space exploration.

	My main reasons for wanting more space exploration are:

	1. Esthetic.  Mankind expanding into space seems beautiful
to me.  Also I like great technology for its own sake.

	2. I would like to go in space myself.

	3. Space colonization would disperse the human race sufficiently
so that nuclear war would be less likely to wipe out mankind.

	4. Our world would benefit from having a new frontier where
individuals, groups and societies could develop to suit themselves.

	5. Eventually, we'll explore the galaxy and beyond.

	Now let me state my opinion of the facts.

	1. There may be worthwhile mineral resources in space.  However,
I fear they won't be concentrated enough to beat the mining of low
grade ores on Earth.  Perhaps some materials will be economically
obtainable from space and others aren't.

	2. Except for reducing the danger of humanity being wiped
out by nuclear war or in the long run by astronomical disaster of some
kind, I don't think space exploration is required for the survival
of humanity.  Breeder reactors will provide energy for hundreds of
millions of years (My estimates are on the high side since I only
demand that the rock be more concentrated in energy than coal).
Low grade ores can be mined for almost all elements that we currently
use (We might run out of mercury).

	On the other hand, except for nuclear war, I don't see any
serious danger to the survival of humanity.  I think that most
countries will come to control their populations, and those that
don't will be pruned by nature.

	3. The costs of exploiting space resources are presently
unpredictable in the short term.  In the long term, I think they'll
be cheap enough with sufficient automation, enough to support
countries established in space.  However, Earth resources will
also become cheaper in terms of human labor by that same automation.

	The problem is that everything connected with space has
proved enormously expensive.  For example, while launches are
expensive, the satellites themselves are even more expensive than
the launches.  There isn't information to justify the computations
of the costs of solar power satellites or of mining the moon.
I don't mean the materials costs which can be calculated, but the
costs of getting it right.  There are many mistakes to be made.

Space program

	Therefore, I favor the following kind of space program.

	1. Openness to new technology.  Since the early 1960s,
NASA has been squelching development of new space travel systems
on the grounds that they can't be ready in time to help approved
missions.  Possible technologies include electromagnetic and
hydraulic launchers, single stage to orbit rockets, NERVA and Orion
(I published an article in 1954 about spinning liquid nuclear
rockets), various kinds of skyhook, rockets powered by laser transmitted
power, ion rockets and solar sails.
Several hundred millions per year should be spent on a technology
program apart from specific missions.

	2. A permanent orbital base.  A major objective should be
to develop and test space construction technology so that SPS and
lunar mining will have known costs.

	3. One way missions to the moon and Mars.  These aren't
suicide missions, but the astronauts are committed to stay there
permanently with resupply.  That would have required less rocket
power than Apollo, and we would really know the moon by now had
that been done.

	4. Your favorite space science programs.

	5. Willingness to sell launches of the Shuttle and its
successors for any non-military purpose to anyone.  In particular,
if some group doesn't like it here on Earth, because the rest of
us eat meat, don't have the right religion, don't love each other
enough, or aren't sufficiently libertarian, then they should be
permitted to set up their own colonies in space if they can raise
the money.  Let me point out that the price of a Shuttle launch
is within the means of any organization with a few hundred thousand
members and within the means of a few rich individuals.

Some Further Differences with Neil Rowe

	1. I don't understand the statements about macho, middle class,
etc. as anything but an intensification of a statement of taste.
Is there some stronger argument against liking adventure and technology
for themselves?

	2. Mankind has advanced through technology.  People live longer
and migrate from areas of low technology to high technology.  I don't
see any other kind of advance.

	3. There is no evidence that concentration on "how to live with
others" per se would do any good.  The evidence tends more to the
conclusion that such concentration is likely to lead to fanaticism
and fanaticism to mass murder.  Let me cite Cambodia, Jonestown and
the continual communal fighting in India.

	4. I don't understand the citation of the values of non-Western
societies.  This seems to me to be a figment of the intellectual
imagination.  Japan, China and even India are developing technological
societies with more or less competence and more or less hampered by
socialist ideology.  Nowhere, except possibly in America and Western
Europe is the Buddhist-type ideology growing, and nowhere at all is
it strong.  In a few places, some shreds of it are used as a lever
to provoke guilt feelings among liberals, but it doesn't seem to me
to be sincere.

	5. Mankind living together without danger of war requires
an advance in political science and its acceptance by the political
process, i.e. by politicians.  I don't see how this advance can
be forced, and kidding oneself that one has a scientific politics
has led to the Soviet Empire.  I think that the development of AI
and its application to cognitive psychology and to sociology may
help develop scientific politics, but it may not happen soon.

	6. One could wish that the laws of nuclear science were such
as wouldn't permit nuclear explosions.  As one who would have finished
basic training in time to take part in the invasion of Japan, I
can see some merits to Truman's decision.  The availability of
nuclear energy seems to me to be all good.  I must confess that
I see now merit in any of the arguments against it, and I've read
them.  Moreover, I doubt the sincerity of many of the anti-nuclear
people, since I see the anti-nuclear movement as using the issue
to achieve what they regard as social reforms without having to
persuade people to adopt these "reforms" on their own merits.

	There are further arguments that could be made, but
perhaps it's better to see if a reply from NCR is elicited.