The new NASA chief may be a good sign for manned spaceflight.
-
Obama has not seemed particularly interested in spaceflight (I wonder where he thinks a lot of the technology he likes so much came from?) and some of his more liberal staffers at one point talked about raiding what was left of NASA's budget to fund their pet fuzzy projects. But, ex-astronaut; ex-Marine Corps pilot and Vietnam vet, Charles Bolden[^] is a good sign for the future of NASA, and in my opinion, the future of mankind. A major choice is looming regarding American spaceflight since the shuttle program is supposed to end in 2010 and for 5 to 10 years, we are supposed to be dependent on our good friends the Russians for rides to the Space Station we built and theoretically own half of. Bolden is not the kind of guy, according some experts, to take on the role he now has, in order to shut the program down - however, whether he has easy, or any access, to the President is unclear; and his own support for Project Orion - the new space transport and precursor to our return to the moon is not known either. But it seems logical that an ex-astronaut is now going to accept the down-sizing of the manned program in favor of more instrument-launches. Bush talked a good game when it came to space, but his focus was overseas and whatever might have been had he not gotten us involved in Iraq is pure speculation. I'm not sure Clinton understood that the moon wasn't the size of a quarter or that we orbited the sun rather than vice versa. But maybe he did, he just didn't act like it. One of the reasons I voted for McCain was my belief that he understood the strategic and tactical importance of space in a way that no-one since Reagan has seemed to. Well, no matter what, we got the Hubble working again. That's a good thing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Obama has not seemed particularly interested in spaceflight (I wonder where he thinks a lot of the technology he likes so much came from?) and some of his more liberal staffers at one point talked about raiding what was left of NASA's budget to fund their pet fuzzy projects. But, ex-astronaut; ex-Marine Corps pilot and Vietnam vet, Charles Bolden[^] is a good sign for the future of NASA, and in my opinion, the future of mankind. A major choice is looming regarding American spaceflight since the shuttle program is supposed to end in 2010 and for 5 to 10 years, we are supposed to be dependent on our good friends the Russians for rides to the Space Station we built and theoretically own half of. Bolden is not the kind of guy, according some experts, to take on the role he now has, in order to shut the program down - however, whether he has easy, or any access, to the President is unclear; and his own support for Project Orion - the new space transport and precursor to our return to the moon is not known either. But it seems logical that an ex-astronaut is now going to accept the down-sizing of the manned program in favor of more instrument-launches. Bush talked a good game when it came to space, but his focus was overseas and whatever might have been had he not gotten us involved in Iraq is pure speculation. I'm not sure Clinton understood that the moon wasn't the size of a quarter or that we orbited the sun rather than vice versa. But maybe he did, he just didn't act like it. One of the reasons I voted for McCain was my belief that he understood the strategic and tactical importance of space in a way that no-one since Reagan has seemed to. Well, no matter what, we got the Hubble working again. That's a good thing.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
As much as I would love to see a viable manned space program, government is simply not capable of providing it, at least not in a democratic society. The costs are too great and the rewards are too far in the future to be sustained in annual budget planning. If there are resources in space that require human settlement to exploit than it should be up to private industry to develope it. I don't want any more of my tax money wasted on a space program that defines 'success' as a few foot prints on some distant planet. A viable large scale manned space program would require a tremendous effort by any society. It would demand not only massive expenditures, but a tolerance for the inevitable loss of life that any such effort would entail. Having said that, if that want to send some expendable old guys up there who don't need to worry too much about the long term consequences from exposure to various sources of radiation, I volunteer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, May 25, 2009 10:16 AM
-
As much as I would love to see a viable manned space program, government is simply not capable of providing it, at least not in a democratic society. The costs are too great and the rewards are too far in the future to be sustained in annual budget planning. If there are resources in space that require human settlement to exploit than it should be up to private industry to develope it. I don't want any more of my tax money wasted on a space program that defines 'success' as a few foot prints on some distant planet. A viable large scale manned space program would require a tremendous effort by any society. It would demand not only massive expenditures, but a tolerance for the inevitable loss of life that any such effort would entail. Having said that, if that want to send some expendable old guys up there who don't need to worry too much about the long term consequences from exposure to various sources of radiation, I volunteer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Monday, May 25, 2009 10:16 AM
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't want any more of my tax money wasted on a space program that defines 'success' as a few foot prints on some distant planet.
That's pretty much what they said when Columbus wanted to go back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I don't want any more of my tax money wasted on a space program that defines 'success' as a few foot prints on some distant planet.
That's pretty much what they said when Columbus wanted to go back.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
That's pretty much what they said when Columbus wanted to go back
And if someone hadn't mentioned 'Gold' that is pretty much the way it would have stayed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
That's pretty much what they said when Columbus wanted to go back
And if someone hadn't mentioned 'Gold' that is pretty much the way it would have stayed.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if someone hadn't mentioned 'Gold' that is pretty much the way it would have stayed.
Fine: 'Energy"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
And if someone hadn't mentioned 'Gold' that is pretty much the way it would have stayed.
Fine: 'Energy"
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Fine: 'Energy"
Maybe, but thats going to be a hard sell considering the amount of investment required to develope space based energy resources of whatever kind. The real problem is that any resource that might justify a permanent manned presence in space, is available more cheaply somewhere on earth, and by the time it is no longer cheaply available, the economy is going to be so badly damaged that investment in space based operations are going to be very, very painful. Sadly, I think it is going to take a form of government closer in nature to 15th century spain than a modern democracy to carry that off. Some place where someone in charge can just say - 'fuck the people' we're going to space. China comes to mind. Our best hope is to depend on private entreprenuers to determine how best to invest in space resources and take the risks invovled to do it. But that is going to take a government willing to allow for such risky investments of private capital, and I'm not sure we have that any longer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Fine: 'Energy"
Maybe, but thats going to be a hard sell considering the amount of investment required to develope space based energy resources of whatever kind. The real problem is that any resource that might justify a permanent manned presence in space, is available more cheaply somewhere on earth, and by the time it is no longer cheaply available, the economy is going to be so badly damaged that investment in space based operations are going to be very, very painful. Sadly, I think it is going to take a form of government closer in nature to 15th century spain than a modern democracy to carry that off. Some place where someone in charge can just say - 'fuck the people' we're going to space. China comes to mind. Our best hope is to depend on private entreprenuers to determine how best to invest in space resources and take the risks invovled to do it. But that is going to take a government willing to allow for such risky investments of private capital, and I'm not sure we have that any longer.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
private entreprenuers
Only if they can smell a profit. But space exploration is hugely expensive that only Governments could fund that, and even then, they could back away as it may not be truly feasible. And I suspect that might be the result for the planned manned exploration of Mars. Trying looking at NASA's Concept Map for this.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
private entreprenuers
Only if they can smell a profit. But space exploration is hugely expensive that only Governments could fund that, and even then, they could back away as it may not be truly feasible. And I suspect that might be the result for the planned manned exploration of Mars. Trying looking at NASA's Concept Map for this.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Only if they can smell a profit.
But if a high enough probability of profit is involved, than the expense is not an issue. The profit motive is the only means of truly determining the practicality of space exploration.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But space exploration is hugely expensive that only Governments could fund that, and even then, they could back away as it may not be truly feasible. And I suspect that might be the result for the planned manned exploration of Mars. Trying looking at NASA's Concept Map for this.
ANd any such funding is likely to be wasted without the will to maintain very long range planning objectives, regardless of how scientifically feasible it would be. Scientific feasibility and political feasibility are two entirely different issues. FWIW, I'm totally opposed to any attempt at manned exploration of mars before we have established a permanent presence on the moon. I think any such effort would be a waste of time and resources. If anything, I think astroids and comets are a far more suitable objective before mars. They contain vast quantities of resources that would be far easier to harvest than anything on mars would be. A lunar outpost, supplied with water from such objects would be a perfect means of boot strapping a permanent human presence in space.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Only if they can smell a profit.
But if a high enough probability of profit is involved, than the expense is not an issue. The profit motive is the only means of truly determining the practicality of space exploration.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
But space exploration is hugely expensive that only Governments could fund that, and even then, they could back away as it may not be truly feasible. And I suspect that might be the result for the planned manned exploration of Mars. Trying looking at NASA's Concept Map for this.
ANd any such funding is likely to be wasted without the will to maintain very long range planning objectives, regardless of how scientifically feasible it would be. Scientific feasibility and political feasibility are two entirely different issues. FWIW, I'm totally opposed to any attempt at manned exploration of mars before we have established a permanent presence on the moon. I think any such effort would be a waste of time and resources. If anything, I think astroids and comets are a far more suitable objective before mars. They contain vast quantities of resources that would be far easier to harvest than anything on mars would be. A lunar outpost, supplied with water from such objects would be a perfect means of boot strapping a permanent human presence in space.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
As you say, feasibility is not just scientific, but the concept map I referenced above NASA's Exploring Mars - Map of Maps[^] has in-built links. Some alas don't work but many link to other relevant concept maps that gives a good overview of some of the hurdles that need to be overcome. As far as asteroids are concerned, I'm not certain we have anywhere near enough information to make any assumptions on any benefit they could provide, and IMO that could be a false trail.
-
As you say, feasibility is not just scientific, but the concept map I referenced above NASA's Exploring Mars - Map of Maps[^] has in-built links. Some alas don't work but many link to other relevant concept maps that gives a good overview of some of the hurdles that need to be overcome. As far as asteroids are concerned, I'm not certain we have anywhere near enough information to make any assumptions on any benefit they could provide, and IMO that could be a false trail.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As you say, feasibility is not just scientific, but the concept map I referenced above NASA's Exploring Mars - Map of Maps[^] has in-built links.
Well, that map shows precisely why we don't want government involved. That isn't a map for using space for the benefit of humanity, it is a map for using space to foster the careers of a hand full of academics at huge expense to tax payers. I am as curious about understanding the origins of life and finding life on other planets as anyone is, but the only reason to send people into space is to answer a single question - how do we use space to enhance human existence. To spend all that money for some purely academic curiousity would be the greatest waste imaginable.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as asteroids are concerned, I'm not certain we have anywhere near enough information to make any assumptions on any benefit they could provide, and IMO that could be a false trail.
There is sufficient evidence to warrent much greater research. They contain most of the raw material required to sustain human society and it is in a much more available package.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As you say, feasibility is not just scientific, but the concept map I referenced above NASA's Exploring Mars - Map of Maps[^] has in-built links.
Well, that map shows precisely why we don't want government involved. That isn't a map for using space for the benefit of humanity, it is a map for using space to foster the careers of a hand full of academics at huge expense to tax payers. I am as curious about understanding the origins of life and finding life on other planets as anyone is, but the only reason to send people into space is to answer a single question - how do we use space to enhance human existence. To spend all that money for some purely academic curiousity would be the greatest waste imaginable.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As far as asteroids are concerned, I'm not certain we have anywhere near enough information to make any assumptions on any benefit they could provide, and IMO that could be a false trail.
There is sufficient evidence to warrent much greater research. They contain most of the raw material required to sustain human society and it is in a much more available package.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, that map shows precisely why we don't want government involved
I do understand your reservation in government getting its fingers embroiled in almost anything that *really* matters but sometimes there is no alternative. Yet you comment that academic curiosities abound. No doubt there will suitable quantities of them alongside engineers of all disciplines. It probably won't turn into a reality "Star Trek", but then ... who really knows what the distant future holds.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Well, that map shows precisely why we don't want government involved
I do understand your reservation in government getting its fingers embroiled in almost anything that *really* matters but sometimes there is no alternative. Yet you comment that academic curiosities abound. No doubt there will suitable quantities of them alongside engineers of all disciplines. It probably won't turn into a reality "Star Trek", but then ... who really knows what the distant future holds.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I do understand your reservation in government getting its fingers embroiled in almost anything that *really* matters but sometimes there is no alternative. Yet you comment that academic curiosities abound. No doubt there will suitable quantities of them alongside engineers of all disciplines. It probably won't turn into a reality "Star Trek", but then ... who really knows what the distant future holds.
Well, again, all I can say is that any such effort is beyond the means of any democratic form of government. A strictly centrally controlled society where everyone can be required to support the plan or else is the only government that can achieve such a massive commitment of resources for such a long period of time. And even then it would only be possible if that society were secure from threat from other societies during that entire time. Private investment however can work at a far less obtruvise pace and scale. The only use government might have is to determine whether or not there is any thing of intrinsic value which could be exploited. Business will determine the most economically efficient way of accessing those resources. Government never will because it has no motive to do so. What should happen is for there to be an international tax waiver for investments in space development by private industry. And no taxes would be levied on any profits for some lengthy period of time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I do understand your reservation in government getting its fingers embroiled in almost anything that *really* matters but sometimes there is no alternative. Yet you comment that academic curiosities abound. No doubt there will suitable quantities of them alongside engineers of all disciplines. It probably won't turn into a reality "Star Trek", but then ... who really knows what the distant future holds.
Well, again, all I can say is that any such effort is beyond the means of any democratic form of government. A strictly centrally controlled society where everyone can be required to support the plan or else is the only government that can achieve such a massive commitment of resources for such a long period of time. And even then it would only be possible if that society were secure from threat from other societies during that entire time. Private investment however can work at a far less obtruvise pace and scale. The only use government might have is to determine whether or not there is any thing of intrinsic value which could be exploited. Business will determine the most economically efficient way of accessing those resources. Government never will because it has no motive to do so. What should happen is for there to be an international tax waiver for investments in space development by private industry. And no taxes would be levied on any profits for some lengthy period of time.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, I'm not saying that private enterprise has no role to play. After all, where would the United States Armed Forces be without private industry. That is what I am getting at. Armies, Navies and Air Force personnel pursue wars on the battlefields. Private industry doesn't usually pursue wars on the battlefield, they do what they do best - manufacture. The Government makes it known what is required, and when, and at what price then, normally, private industry tender for such contracts and makes the required objects to specification demanded. The private industry have no interest in what the military do with their tanks, or the Air Force do with their aircraft etc. Likewise for some future manned expedition to another planet/solar system. Government, whatever the shape or form, (USA/Russia/China/World/etc), will makes demands and private industry will satisfy that demand. Perhaps there may come a time when human settlements on such other planets/solar systems will demand exclusive privatized industry to serve their needs, but we ain't anywhere close to that position yet. This is why I suggest it has to be, for the time being, government controlled.
-
Stan, I'm not saying that private enterprise has no role to play. After all, where would the United States Armed Forces be without private industry. That is what I am getting at. Armies, Navies and Air Force personnel pursue wars on the battlefields. Private industry doesn't usually pursue wars on the battlefield, they do what they do best - manufacture. The Government makes it known what is required, and when, and at what price then, normally, private industry tender for such contracts and makes the required objects to specification demanded. The private industry have no interest in what the military do with their tanks, or the Air Force do with their aircraft etc. Likewise for some future manned expedition to another planet/solar system. Government, whatever the shape or form, (USA/Russia/China/World/etc), will makes demands and private industry will satisfy that demand. Perhaps there may come a time when human settlements on such other planets/solar systems will demand exclusive privatized industry to serve their needs, but we ain't anywhere close to that position yet. This is why I suggest it has to be, for the time being, government controlled.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This is why I suggest it has to be, for the time being, government controlled.
Than there is absolutely no purpose for manned space flight. The government can do everything it needs with far cheaper robotic space craft. There must be a reason beyond basic scientific research and that has to be driven by corporations pursueing and exploiting profitable operations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This is why I suggest it has to be, for the time being, government controlled.
Than there is absolutely no purpose for manned space flight. The government can do everything it needs with far cheaper robotic space craft. There must be a reason beyond basic scientific research and that has to be driven by corporations pursueing and exploiting profitable operations.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than there is absolutely no purpose for manned space flight. The government can do everything it needs with far cheaper robotic space craft.
And when the Chinese have a permanent settlement on the moon equipped with enough mass drives to obliterate the US in 2 hours, will you still be reciting this mantra?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Than there is absolutely no purpose for manned space flight. The government can do everything it needs with far cheaper robotic space craft.
And when the Chinese have a permanent settlement on the moon equipped with enough mass drives to obliterate the US in 2 hours, will you still be reciting this mantra?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
If we are now talking about militariztion of space, that is an entirely different scenario. However, I think the expense of creating and maintaining such an arsenal would bankrupt China. In any case, why should they do that when a fraction of that expense could purchase a far greater number of ICBM's?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
If we are now talking about militariztion of space, that is an entirely different scenario. However, I think the expense of creating and maintaining such an arsenal would bankrupt China. In any case, why should they do that when a fraction of that expense could purchase a far greater number of ICBM's?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Settlers in the old wild west would not have been particularly successful without the US Cavalry watching their backs. Although you might go into space with all of the best intentions, you have to have military like resources to defend those moves, or even to pave the way forward. So to suggest that space exploration is just another commercial venture is just plain wrong and doomed to failure. Yet, with military also comes discipline and organization. Without such discipline and organization, you will have disjointed ventures and, for example, unlike rescue missions to some part of Planet Earth that can be reached within a moderate time frame, space creates new problems where timely interventions is not possible.
Stan Shannon wrote:
militariztion of space
With the Soviet launch of Sputnik, the race for the militarization of space was underway. And how shocked the United States was when they realized they were being left behind. You commented above about feasibility not being just scientific but also political, now you understand why private enterprise by itself just doesn't cut the mustard.
modified on Tuesday, May 26, 2009 6:06 AM