Re TC Wheeler on High Frontier
Peter Rowley
exploring the rest of the solar system and mining its resources (e.g those
of the moon). I'd like to believe this too, but while I can see the
possibility of technical advances NOT related to space exploration
coming from this program, I just can't see how it will help us explore
the universe. No space station is involved, so there won't be a natural
launch point for interplanetary flights or the basis for industry-in-space
operations (making alloys that can only be manufactured in 0G for example).
The US would only be putting up weapons in space, just another earth-orbit-
bound payload and not something that would further exploration (as far as
I have heard-- does anyone know of any concrete ways in which exploration
would be advanced?)
If you are convinced that (a) the High Frontier program will further
exploration and (b) will not so destabilize the nuclear balance of power so
as to render the question of exploration academic (we can't explore if
we're dead or have an economy that's been shattered by nuclear war), then
you are in the happy position of having the leader of your country
support a project you think will do some good. I firmly think, based on
arguments in this and other articles in this group, that both (a) and
(b) are false, however, and that High Frontier is a big mistake. If you want
us to explore space (I sure do!), lobby for a space station or other program
that really does further exploration while not threatening the explorers.
It's appropriate at this point to mention one arms-race solution based
on viewing it mostly as a question of economics. The solution is to
build a space station. This will keep the defence contractors happy
by giving them something huge to build, will help the economy by
supporting industry-in-space, will certainly further exploration,
and could probably be easily sold as being in the interests of national
security. The key to this scheme is that the space station project would
draw capital and, especially, industrial plant and manpower away from
the arms race, depriving it of its economic steam. Nations would reduce
arms levels, bilaterally, so they could spend the money on space stations
and reap the economic benefits from them. This is too simplistic an
analysis, I'm sure, but is interesting as an example of looking at the
arms race in economic terms.
p. rowley, U. Toronto