more on Fwd: Re: Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:59:46 -0700
From: James Kobielus <jkobielus () burtongroup com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4 
andfuturecancelled.
To: dave () farber net

Dave:

Re your article “[IP] Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4 and 
Futurecancelled,” I wish somebody (anybody) in Washington would present 
this country's space-exploitation policy priorities/options in the proper 
framework. Here are my thoughts concerning what I feel is the proper framework:

1484ee8.gif


Fundamentally, our space-exploitation options and costs are largely a 
function of the types of vehicles we propose to launch and maintain. The 
options are unmanned vs. manned vehicles and earth-orbit vs. deep-space 
vehicles. They fall into the four quadrants presented above:

·       Unmanned, earth-orbit vehicles (e.g., satellites, Hubble space 
telescope)
·       Unmanned, deep-space vehicles (e.g., probes, landers, robots)
·       Manned, earth-orbit vehicles (e.g., space shuttle, space station)
·       Manned, deep-space vehicles (e.g., Apollo-like vehicles)

It seems to me that the vast majority of our high 
priorities­telecommunications, remote sensing, surveillance, global 
positioning, and deep-space telescopy­-are being addressed just fine by 
unmanned, earth-orbit vehicles (the upper left quadrant). As is clear, 
these include both practical and pure-science applications of a space 
presence. By contrast, the other three quadrants are almost all 
pure-science applications, with the frivolous exception of space tourism 
(for manned, earth-orbit).

The color-coding of the quadrants serves an important purpose. It flags the 
payoff-to-cost ratio (to the U.S. and to humanity generally) from the space 
applications in a quadrant. Clearly, unmanned, earth-orbit vehicles provide 
a strong net benefit to humanity, so they’re colored bright green. By 
contrast, manned, deep-space vehicles cost a lot, risk human lives, and 
promise little practical benefit (and not appreciably more than unmanned, 
deep-space vehicles). Consequently, they’re colored bright red (for red 
ink, i.e., money, and for the red human blood likely to be shed in such 
missions). The other two quadrants are a paler shade of red, showing that 
they’re primarily cost centers and don’t offer much practical payoff.

To the extent that we launch manned, deep-space missions, these must be 
sold to the American public on the basis of pure national hubris, pure 
manifest destiny, and pure science. In other words, as pure symbols devoid 
of serious practical benefit.

I personally think that’s an absolute waste of money. Focus on earth, 
earth-orbit, and all things that make life on earth more pleasant.

Jim

James Kobielus
Senior Analyst
Burton Group
6006 John Roccato Court
Alexandria VA 22310
703-924-6224 (phone and fax)
USA Eastern timezone (GMT-5)--Washington DC area
<http://www.burtongroup.com>www.burtongroup.com
"Driving network evolution"
Hope we can see you at Catalyst 2004.

"SEATTLE//In the essential/Seattle users//photosynthesize/caffeine 
directly//from whatever drops/of liquid sunshine//are vouchsafed their 
way/or, failing that, fix//off the glints of glare/that glance in off 
the//gray and grace their green/eye-stained monitors." --James Kobielus
"YES//Ah yes the meaning,/the ineffable//chi of words we don't/understand 
but love//and into which we/wish to crunch the glow//and interstellar/gas 
surrounding the//crucible's melt and/endless spew of new//formulations 
and/dumb complexities."--James Kobielus



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/