Re: A question to everyone

skymuffins wrote:
> 
> "Ron Hammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

snip

> > >
> > Lol!  Perhaps, you misunderstood what I meant by "we aren't going
> > anywhere".  Although telerobotics make extra-terrestial exploration far
> > more feasible, I can envision a few people making a bold trek.  But,
> > this is not "us".  For all intents and purposes, mankind is stuck on
> > this rock forever.  Once upon a time, people could always go "there".
> > "There" eventually became the New World.  Even now, "there" might be the
> > Outback of Australia, Mongolia, or some tiny island.  But, we are fast
> > running out of "theres".
> 
> Colonization of space isn't something that will happen for SEVERAL
> generations (100 years or more), but it WILL happen.

Not the sort of "colonization" that sci-fi imagines.  One THOUSAND years
from now, 99% of humanity will reside right here.  This is why I say
that we MUST wean ourselves of the fantasy that we can still escape our
mess and go "there".  We are Easter Island.  (If you do not understand
the comparison, I strongly suggest learning about the fate of Easter
Island.) 

  I agree that we are
> rapidly running out of room here.  Perhaps that urgency for living space
> will be the catalyst needed to spawn another space race.
> 

"Living space" isn't the problem.  We BELONG here, we BREATHE the air
here, we REQUIRE the gravity here, and so on.  You can't create another
"earth" NEARLY as easily as you can manage the one that bore us. 


> > Today, as in past centuries, clear-cutting the Brazilian rainforrest is
> > as meaningless to many people as clear-cutting America was to our
> > forebears.  The "truth" was that people can/could always move on and
> > leave the mess behind.  I don't think that even "Greenies" understand
> > how desparate the situation WILL become.  This time, we can't move on.
> > The escapist fantasy that a major portion of mankind will soon reside
> > off-world is just that, a fantasy.
> 
> Soon... is a fantasy.  One cannot predict the future.  Would the Wright
> brothers have called an aircraft carrying a million pounds and
> circum-navigating the globe a fantasy?  Perhaps.  But advances in metalurgy,
> propulsion technology, aerodynamics, electronics, etc... stoked by the
> necessities of war to have a better weapon than the other guy, all lead to
> an unprecedented boom in aviation.  Space is the next frontier.

Space is a frontier of a totally different type.  For instance, for the
forseeable future, all extraterrestrial work and exploration will shift
to telerobotics.  With NASA at the helm, none of us will even see a
manned visit to Mars. 

  NASA is
> foot dragging (in the 60's, they promised our generation a ride to space),
> but private enterprise is edging in on NASA's monopoly (Boeing's Sea Launch,
> Pegasus, et al)

NASA claims to foster private enterprise (after insistance by Congress),
but in fact, is terrorified of the efficiency of private enterprise.  We
will never get things moving fast enough for todays market as long as
NASA is the gatekeeper.

> >
> >
> > > Missions to the stars will have to wait for a hundred generations... The
> > > biggest problem is in the short run.  We keep slashing NASA's budget and
> > > tell them to do more with it and then all but halting the entire manned
> > > space program everytime there is a fatality.

Then, the fix is obvious, take NASA out of the way.

  Exploration is dangerous,
> it
> > > always has been and always will be.  By its very nature, exploration is
> > > pushing against human boundaries.  As a species we are losing our
> stomach
> > > for it.  This may be our undoing in the end.
> > >
> > > - Harrison
> >
> > NASA is the roadblock, not the solution.
> 
> I sorta disagree, Ron.  I don't think you can fix all the blame on NASA.
> NASA has taken space from a fantasy to reality and deserve credit for that.

Here, you are speaking of a DIFFERENT NASA.  In the 60s, the feeling
was, "how can we DO this?!".  Now, the feeling is, "what is our excuse
to NOT do this?"  I occassionally work with NASA.  (I've personally
designed a decent number of EVA tools.)  The same plans, processes, and
materials used for the moon race are not accptable any longer.  As we
are now into the third generation of NASA workers, it has ground to just
another Federal jobs program, white-collar welfare.  In only EIGHT
years, NASA completely designed and built, from scratch, not just
hardware, but the entire infrastructure to get to the moon!  Eight
years!  

Now, it has been FOUR TIMES that long.  We finally had to give up on
producing a space station of our own.  The space station started out
grand but kept shrinking until we even had to enlist the aid of a lot of
other countries just to get SOMETHING up.  The shuttle is beyond its
expected service life.  The aging fleet is now reduced in number by two
with no plans to design the replacement vehicle.


> NASA has the vision and the ambition to take us to the stars... 

PFFFFTTTTTT!  You have certainly swallowed the PR version of NASA.  Tell
me this, as the saying goes, "What has NASA done for us today?"  The
recent launch of Chinese astronauts sets the stage for the next phase,
Asia will soon rule space.  NASA even had the nerve to fight the case of
the first space tourist deal with the Russians.


The taxpayer
> doesn't want any part of it.  If you asked a taxpayer to spend 5 dollars
> extra per month for the space program?  HELL NO! would be the answer.  We
> are too busy spending our money on beer, cigarettes and sports (BILLIONS of
> dollars).  This isn't all NASA's fault.  They are trying to lay out a
> vision, no one cares!

That's the problem.  NASA sells "visions".  They make great
presentations, paint great hypothetical scenes of distant planets,
eternally refine questionable processes, and have a great PR
department.  But, they no longer BUILD anything!  You can excuse them
for budget problems if you wish, but sqeezing NASA's budget only
eliminates the product, not the bureaucracy. You end up with 60% of the
people doing only 40% of the product, and so on.  

As far as budget goes, somewhere, I have a comparison that you could
build THIRTY-EIGHT space shuttles for the cost of a single B-2 bomber. 
but, at this point, throwing tons of money at NASA will not accomplish
anything.  Just shut everything else down and turn them into space
traffic controllers.

-- 
Ron Hammon
Remove the "y" from ".nyet", when present, to reach me.