Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: TUESDAY, July 19, 1994                   TAG: 9408110002
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A5   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: By STEPHEN WILLIAMS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

AMERICA IS FRITTERING AWAY ITS AEROSPACE LEAD

The technical innovations that came from the race to the moon put the United States 20 years ahead of everyone else in aerospace capabilities, computer technology and a host of other fields. Over the past quarter-century, however, the government has utterly failed the American people by allowing these vast capabilities to dwindle away.

We still have the most capable launch vehicles and the most robust space program, but nearly all of our resources were designed decades ago, with only minor improvements since.

Today, the United States accounts for only 30 percent of the world's commercial space-launches, and that percentage is falling fast. At the same time, Congress and the administration were not sure they could come up with $70 million to fund a new launch-vehicle to leapfrog us over the competition, and save the government tens of billions of dollars during the next decade.

This is like your or my passing up the opportunity to save $250 on a new furnace by not making a 90-cent phone call.

There are those in Congress who feel the best way to get re-elected is to go to their constituents and say, "Look how much money I cut from the budget. I'm responsible because I cut 'the fat.''' What they don't tell you is that they cut 5 cents today knowing it will cost us hundreds of dollars in the future. They fail to mention that every dollar spent on high-technology programs, such as the space station and new launch-vehicles, pumps from $7 to $10 into the economy and returns $2 or more to the government.

The problem is that most in Congress cannot understand how going into space, with its unlimited resources and boundless energy, could possibly do anyone any good. Many congressmen had the same problem in 1803, when President Thomas Jefferson wanted to buy the Louisiana Purchase from France. What would the U.S. economy be like today without the world's breadbasket providing a plentiful low-cost food supply; or the Western states and their vast mineral resources that built our industries; or Alaska, which provides the energy that powers those industries?

What happens when we use up those resources, or destroy our planet in seeking out more? How do we raise the Third World to a decent and safe standard of living when only 5 percent of the population currently strains all the planet's resources to maintain such a standard?

For those who wonder whether it's worth the cost to move into space:

Think about the fact that there are asteroids with enough gold to pay for the cost of sending a thousand people to mine it, and enough platinum left over to retire the national debt 10 times over.

Think about the fact that solar-power satellites made from lunar material could provide power for us and for emerging countries without suffocating the planet in pollution.

Think about the fact that heavy industries based on the moon cannot kill off endangered species or pollute water tables.

Think about the fact that medicines can be made purer and more cheaply in orbit around the Earth, and electronics made faster and better, than they ever could be made here under the constant force of gravity.

Think about the total waste it would be for the human race to wither away on this little island Earth every night, never knowing what we missed, never learning from others or sharing what we learned and what we believe.

Stephen Williams is a graduate student in computer science at Virginia Tech.