Let's have a little fun. Anyone interested?
You're a member of the U.S. Geological Survey and using a specially
constructed vessel you've landed on the shores of Hawaii.
You had to traverse boiling acidic water because of the undershore
volcanoes. Using special breathing gear and chemical suits you make
your way onto land. The volcanic gases make the air completely
unbreathable but they have spawned never before seen flora and the
sky and sunrise/set are unbelievable beautiful.
You notice that your geological hammer is corroding before your
eyes. The gases. No common tools can be used. If you come back to
Hawaii, and oh how it beckons to you, you'll have to come prepared
with specially designed equipment that can withstand the corrosive
environment.
The world sees the pictures of your expeditions and falls in love
with the vistas and they would like to go there.
You think it would be a good idea to develop a tourist industry in
Hawaii but because it is such a hostile environment there is a lot
of risk associated with your untested proposal.
If you want to boat people in no ordinary boat will do. It must be
specially constructed. If you want to fly people in you have to
build an airport, but all of your bulldozers, pavers, rock drillers
have to be specially designed to withstand the environment, not to
mention that the plane has to be specially designed because the air
intake for the turbines won't like all of the other gases. If you
want food or water you need to build a special refinery to extract
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and other trace elements from
local rocks.
In your heart you know that people will flock to Hawaii, and in your
mind's eye you see scores of giant hotels alongside the beach.
Hundreds of thousands of tourists playing on the sand and frolicking
in the water once the pressure dome is built. This could be Nirvana,
but how do you bootstrap from where you are to this vision?
What is the very first thing you do that will lead to the next step?
Simply offering boat tours doesn't help create the next step.
Do you develop the tourist industry in one big, interconnected shot
or do you take little steps?
Any takers?
TangoMan
On Monday, September 8, 2003, at 06:13 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
> or do you take little steps?
The big shot is only an option if you have lots of money.
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr.
Tito going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
As much as I hate to sound like a Republican, I have to make a case that the
pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations. I mean if a
new volcanic island appears off Java, the pioneers will be nearby fishermen
looking for a port to put in when the weather is bad. But for any
pioneering that requires megabucks, which Hawaii in this scenario (or Mars
in any) is, the folks with something financial to gain will be the ones to
put up the money.
lobby trying to get a government agency to create offshore towns, we'd still
be in the bird-on-the-bouy stage. But because Daddy Petrobucks can make
back his investment, we have quietly seen the migration of thousands,
perhaps tens of, to man-made cities out of sight of land. No government
development billions were required. In fact governments mostly just have to
adjudicate the disputes and rescue the occasional storm-trapped oil platform
workers.
So if you want Mars, oops, I mean your acid-plagued Hawaii, to become the
paradise it could be, don't bother to sell it to the masses, just find the
resources that corporations can make a profit on. If there aren't any, and
rich individuals can't afford to lead the way for a lark, you can write it
off, until some corporation needs it for a coaling station on the way to
Proxima Centauri, where the streets are paved with gold.
Now if the Republicans keep up their "progress," they'll create a new class
of American mega-billionaires at the expense of the rest of us, and who
knows what will motivate them.....
Brad W
Need more e-mail storage? Get 10MB with Hotmail Extra Storage.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
case that the
> pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
> Brad W
Which is why the scale of the investment in orbit need not be a
project killer, if the economc potential is there.
TangoMan
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> As much as I hate to sound like a Republican, I have to make a case
that the
> pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
See post #3711 at
spike
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "orionaut"
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
> > As much as I hate to sound like a Republican, I have to make a
case
> that the
> > pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
>
> Hear, hear!
> See post #3711 at
>
> spike
Yes, but . . . isn't your plan on dubious ground if you expect the
originator of the Habitat to allow it to be hijacked by another
group (yours :-)? If they see something going on, what's to stop
them from terminating your work contracts and deporting you so that
they can maintain the political and societal forces that best suit
their interests?
TangoMan
--- victoriatangoman wrote:
> Yes, but . . . isn't your plan on dubious ground if
> you expect the
> originator of the Habitat to allow it to be hijacked
> by another
> group (yours :-)? If they see something going on,
> what's to stop
> them from terminating your work contracts and
> deporting you so that
> they can maintain the political and societal forces
> that best suit
> their interests?
>
> TangoMan
glorification of the Nietchian race as portrayed on tv
show Andromeda?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
>
> --- victoriatangoman wrote:
> > Yes, but . . . isn't your plan on dubious ground if
> > you expect the
> > originator of the Habitat to allow it to be hijacked
> > by another
> > group (yours :-)? If they see something going on,
> > what's to stop
> > them from terminating your work contracts and
> > deporting you so that
> > they can maintain the political and societal forces
> > that best suit
> > their interests?
> >
> > TangoMan
>
> is it just me or is this starting to sound like the
> glorification of the Nietchian race as portrayed on tv
> show Andromeda?
The homogeniety of future vision, the thrashing of physics, the
sacrifice of appropriate characterization for dramatic effect all
put me off.
The thing with such groups is, that to me, it seems the individuals
are glorying in their superiority.
I think it would be a great idea for society to shift the IQ bell
curve a S.D. to the right. I think that there would be countless
societal improvements. I wouldn't join a group that says hey, we're
all high IQ people because I usually end up coming to the conclusion
that the people are idiots :) LOL. There is a funny dynamic at work
there and maybe its me, but to continually harp about your
intelligence I find a little off-putting. That's why I counsel young
people to avoid groups like Mensa. If they're intelligent then how
they conduct themselves will earn them respect, rather than letting
people know that they're members of Mensa.
Ever met anybody who attended Harvard? You'll usually find out in
the first 15 minutes of meeting them.
TangoMan
>the pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
>
>Which is why the scale of the investment in orbit need not be a
>project killer, if the economc potential is there.
Western economies, no corporation can sell 10 years of multi-billion dollar
losses to their owners/stockholders, no matter how much the seeming payoff
is after those 10 years. Investors in the modern era just won't stand for
that long a maturity on their investments, not on something with even a
whiff of risk to it. If you can start earning the payoff in 6 months or a
year, most stockholders will wait that long. More than that and you better
be a closely-held corporation with several cash cows in the portfolio to
keep people cool. Someday the ISS will be replaced by the IOSC, the
International Orbital Sam's Club.
This is why I think China will establish Lunar and Martian colonies before
NASA or ESA the Japanese, because they don't suffer these constraints on
their investments.
Brad W.
Fast, faster, fastest: Upgrade to Cable or DSL today!
--- Brad Walsh wrote:
> Yes, but there's one other kink, and that time to
> profitability. In most
> Western economies, no corporation can sell 10 years
> of multi-billion dollar
> losses to their owners/stockholders, no matter how
> much the seeming payoff
> is after those 10 years. Investors in the modern
> era just won't stand for
> that long a maturity on their investments, not on
> something with even a
> whiff of risk to it. If you can start earning the
> payoff in 6 months or a
> year, most stockholders will wait that long. More
> than that and you better
> be a closely-held corporation with several cash cows
> in the portfolio to
> keep people cool. Someday the ISS will be replaced
> by the IOSC, the
> International Orbital Sam's Club.
>
I could not disagree more with this statement. There
are countless examples of companies will to 10 years
out for large profits. Look into mining operation,
look into IBM research labs, look at the ole at&t labs
before ma bell was broken up, look at the
establishment of LEO constellations. The list goes on
and on.
away from markets which require a significant capital
investment, both in time and money. Many corporations
look 10, 20 years down the road. Thats why they fund
advance research labs. If one of the labs every 10 to
20 years comes out with something nifty, like say
fiber optic cables, then the millions/billions
invested up till then was worth it.
If you business plan shows you not making a profit for
over ten years, this is not a bad thing. So long as
you can show that their investment will be gained
10-20 years out significantly, many large investment
corps are willing to take the risk. So long as you
detail the milestones and continue to make them over
theyears, you should be okay.
> This is why I think China will establish Lunar and
> Martian colonies before
> NASA or ESA the Japanese, because they don't suffer
> these constraints on
> their investments.
>
China has a big capital problem. They realize this
themselves. Just like the US, Russia, Japan and
Europe, their civillian side of their space program is
meant to further their need for national security.
This is neither a criticism nor an appraisal, just a
statement. To be a player in today's world, you need
to have a space program to demonstrate to the world
that you are a serious player militarily. the same
goes with India and Brasil.
I have really been trying to stay out of this china
arguments going back and forth here on this list, but
the fact of the matter is, China is a permanent member
of the un security council. They are a major world
power, as such they will have the same capabilities to
launch as the rest of us do.
To extrapalate that out to saying that they will be
better or worse than the american space program and
who will be the first to colonize is just purely
political rhetoric and nationalistic rabble rousing.
I apologize to the group for getting into politics but
I am just getting tired of listening to all this cold
war rhetoric about China and the need to have an enemy
to compete against in order to galvanize out space
program. I promise not to post again on this part of
the topic.
Ryan Z
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> I could not disagree more with this statement. There
> are countless examples of companies will to 10 years
> out for large profits. Look into mining operation,
> look into IBM research labs, look at the ole at&t labs
> before ma bell was broken up, look at the
> establishment of LEO constellations. The list goes on
> and on.
>
> China has a big capital problem. They realize this
> themselves. Just like the US, Russia, Japan and
> Europe, their civillian side of their space program is
> meant to further their need for national security.
> This is neither a criticism nor an appraisal, just a
> statement. To be a player in today's world, you need
> to have a space program to demonstrate to the world
> that you are a serious player militarily. the same
> goes with India and Brasil.
Ryan, we're starting to agree too much! ROTFLMAO!
I just want to add that it's unlikely, IMHO, that a major push to
industrial space will be financed by one monolithic organization. A
second point I want to add is how profit is accounted for. I've
gotten into a whole heap of hot water on another list with
statements like this, but profit doesn't mean that you've received
cash in hand and can disburse it to your shareholders. Profit can be
earned but unrealized. Oh, heck, one last point; it doesn't
necessarily follow that there will be a 10 to 20 year period of
losses. It could be structured so that the electric utilities are
taking losses to offset their profits, and the construction, mining,
and refining companies are making profit in orbit.
That's more than I wanted to say.
TangoMan
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> To be a player in today's world, you need
> to have a space program to demonstrate to the world
> that you are a serious player militarily. the same
> goes with India and Brasil.
>
> Ryan Z
http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030911193047.vxwonb0m.html
TangoMan
>is it just me or is this starting to sound like the
>glorification of the Nietchian race as portrayed on tv
>show Andromeda?
don't know).
Oh there are definitely sounds of Ubermenchen's jackboots on pavements to be
heard.
But does it necessarily tar the whole eugenics movement that an earlier
adherent was Adolf Hitler? I'm willing to give them a chance to air their
views, but definitely unwilling to let a few innocent blinks of their blue
eyes assure me that they honestly have the best interests of all mankind at
heart. The ghosts of millions of European Jews and tens of millions of
Russians and Slavs cry out to us to get proof of just where the Orionaut's
Circle of Concern extends to, and they haven't been too forthcoming yet.
Brad W.
On Wednesday, September 10, 2003, at 09:32 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> As much as I hate to sound like a Republican, I have to make a
> case that the
>> pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
>
>> Brad W
>
> Which is why the scale of the investment in orbit need not be a
> project killer, if the economc potential is there.
At $10,000/lb to orbit you need an awful lot of profit to make money on
anything but information, which may be why only com-sats, earth
imaging, tv sats, and radio sats seem to have any chance of making
money.
>
> TangoMan
>
The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> Yes, but . . . isn't your plan on dubious ground if you expect the
> originator of the Habitat to allow it to be hijacked by another
> group (yours :-)? If they see something going on, what's to stop
> them from terminating your work contracts and deporting you so that
> they can maintain the political and societal forces that best suit
> their interests?
purpose of which is to retain the power it already has and accumulate
more.
Corporations, however, could give a rat's ass about "how you do it"
so long as you "get it done" to spec and on budget. What REASON could
they have to "deport" a population which practices political freedom
and modified-Objectivist ethics AND BY SO DOING maintains a structure
within which corporate objectives are met and/or exceeded?
And what could they put in our place once they deport us, save either
a population which DOES want to safely "go home" (planetside)
someday -- which re-introduces all the expensive issues that made the
ORION population desirable to begin with -- or another group equally
happy to stay up there for their entire natural lives, which almost
certainly would not be as able as the ORIONauts will be (thanks to
our emphasis on IQ and education), and would highly likely have some
motiviating ideology of ther own (as so many "pilgrim" groups have
throughout Human history)?
spike
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Walsh"
>The ghosts of millions of European Jews and tens of millions of
> Russians and Slavs cry out to us to get proof of just where the
Orionaut's
> Circle of Concern extends to, and they haven't been too forthcoming
yet.
Although I am dead certain that our achievements will have trickle-
down effects to the rest of Humanity, that's really not the point.
Where totalitarians like Hitler and Mao fell into error, no matter
the worthiness or lack thereof of their particular ideologies, is in
insisting on imposing those ideologies by force on persons and
populations who would never accept it voluntarily.
The difference at ORION is that we have absolutely no interest in
forcing anyone to do anything. Every participant is a volunteer. And
we don't even want to impose or make trouble-by-example by running
our experiment on any modern State's territory. We simply want to GO
AWAY -- as social experimenters have done for centuries -- to try
something new which we are honestly convinced has merit. If we flop
miserably, SO BE IT: we've had our chance, and you-all are none the
worse for it.
spike
--- orionaut wrote:
> Corporations, however, could give a rat's ass about
> "how you do it"
> so long as you "get it done" to spec and on budget.
> What REASON could
> they have to "deport" a population which practices
> political freedom
> and modified-Objectivist ethics AND BY SO DOING
> maintains a structure
> within which corporate objectives are met and/or
> exceeded?
multibillion dollar corporation, I most emphatically
disagree with this. In fact, look at the structure of
most any multibillion dollar company and you will see
a rather powerful and well funded department (usally
termed quality) dedicated to ensuring that "how you do
it" is the correct way.
In fact, you look at any company that is ISO9000
certified and you'll see that this is required. If
you don't know what ISO certification is, I highly
recommend you understand how corporations work before
making blanket statements about their practices.
As for what reasons corporation have for expelling
high performers who do not fit in with their culture,
all I can say is look at successful CEOs. Case in
point, look at someone like Jack Welsh. Alot of the
people he expelled were high performers who just did
not fit into the culture he wanted to have. The same
goes with companies like Hewlett Packard. The
legendary HP Way is not for everyone and if you cannot
hack, they let you go.
Ryan Z
> Our circle of concern extends to US.
era Germans were asked how they could as decent people stand by while
extermination camps operated, most cited the Circle of Concern. Yes,
they insisted, they are moral people, and yes the people in the
conzentrationslagers were humans. But the group of people who
deserved their concern, their Circle of Concern, consisted of Germans
and Germanic peoples only, and to a lesser extent other Westerners.
Slavs, though humans, were to be taken no account of in the moral
calculus. If Germany for its greater good needed to exterminate
undesirable peoples, for their land or for greater security or just
because the government didn't like them, then Germany's needs trumped
the concerns, the very lives, of people outside the Circle of
Concern. In other words there was for them no concept of universal
rights for all humans, or no respect for it.
Since WWII this concept has been driven more or less out of Western
society, although it surely still is a part of the worldview of some
other parts of the world. So by asking what your circle of concern
is, I'm asking whom (is anyone) you'd trample underfoot to get to
your goal. It's a humanity test, or conversely a sociopathy test.
Brad W.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "epibeemie"
> > Our circle of concern extends to US.
>
> OK so you weren't familiar with that historical argument. When
Nazi-
> era Germans were asked how they could as decent people stand by
while
> extermination camps operated, most cited the Circle of Concern.
Yes,
> they insisted, they are moral people, and yes the people in the
> conzentrationslagers were humans. But the group of people who
> deserved their concern, their Circle of Concern, consisted of
Germans
> and Germanic peoples only, and to a lesser extent other
Westerners.
> Slavs, though humans, were to be taken no account of in the moral
> calculus. If Germany for its greater good needed to exterminate
> undesirable peoples, for their land or for greater security or
just
> because the government didn't like them, then Germany's needs
trumped
> the concerns, the very lives, of people outside the Circle of
> Concern. In other words there was for them no concept of
universal
> rights for all humans, or no respect for it.
>
> Since WWII this concept has been driven more or less out of
Western
> society, although it surely still is a part of the worldview of
some
> other parts of the world. So by asking what your circle of
concern
> is, I'm asking whom (is anyone) you'd trample underfoot to get to
> your goal. It's a humanity test, or conversely a sociopathy test.
>
> Brad W.
of Western Society. I think it's been diluted but it's still there.
One's allegience is usually to your tribe before that of humanity as
a whole. Western society's comfort and survival takes precedence
over mass starvation overseas. If the test was loss of any life over
the comfort of your tribe, there would be no tolerance for genocide
or starvation in other parts of the world, no matter the expense of
prevention. There is a limit to Western compassion, and while the
lines of the Circle of Concern aren't as stark as they were with WW
II era Germany, they still exist. Further, reduce the question to
family ties versus neighborhood, and they'll still be evident.
So, in the end, do we still need to purge this philosophy from our
society, or does it serve a purpose of some sort and should we
acknowledge it? Is it inherently evil, or just evil in large doses?
TangoMan
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> --- orionaut wrote:
> > Corporations, however, could give a rat's ass about
> > "how you do it"
> > so long as you "get it done" to spec and on budget.
> > What REASON could
> > they have to "deport" a population which practices
> > political freedom
> > and modified-Objectivist ethics AND BY SO DOING
> > maintains a structure
> > within which corporate objectives are met and/or
> > exceeded?
>
> As someone who has been a manager for a large
> multibillion dollar corporation, I most emphatically
> disagree with this. In fact, look at the structure of
> most any multibillion dollar company and you will see
> a rather powerful and well funded department (usally
> termed quality) dedicated to ensuring that "how you do
> it" is the correct way.
course they don't put up with anything off spec, below quota, or past
deadline. Most slavish insistence on specific corporate culture is
undertaken in feat of -- or, worse, in emulation of! -- our old
friend the poaternalistic State.
> In fact, you look at any company that is ISO9000
> certified and you'll see that this is required. If
> you don't know what ISO certification is, I highly
> recommend you understand how corporations work before
> making blanket statements about their practices.
LOL! I work for a multinaitonal which is very serious indeed about
its ISO cert. And if we managed to meet or exceed ISO certification
requirements by doing nothing more than standing on our heads and
whistling Dixie, we'd get our certification just the same.
> As for what reasons corporation have for expelling
> high performers who do not fit in with their culture,
> all I can say is look at successful CEOs. Case in
> point, look at someone like Jack Welsh. Alot of the
> people he expelled were high performers who just did
> not fit into the culture he wanted to have. The same
> goes with companies like Hewlett Packard. The
> legendary HP Way is not for everyone and if you cannot
> hack, they let you go.
Surely moot, since no coporation or corsortium which finds ORION's
ideologies abhorrent will hire us in the first place. As with any
employer/employee or customer/supplier relationship,
interpersonal/inter-organizational "chemistry" is critical.
Have a great weekend, folks! -- spike, heading home
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Ryan Z wrote:
> > To be a player in today's world, you need
> > to have a space program to demonstrate to the world
> > that you are a serious player militarily. the same
> > goes with India and Brasil.
> >
> > Ryan Z
>
> NASA administrator wishes China luck on manned flight plans
> http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030911193047.vxwonb0m.html
>
> TangoMan
Indian cabinet approves proposal for unmanned moon mission
http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/030911164033.fm12qa0c.html
Just waiting for some news from Brazil to make for a Trifecta :)
TangoMan
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 10:38 AM, orionaut wrote:
> wrote:
>> As much as I hate to sound like a Republican, I have to make a case
> that the
>> pioneers of new endeavors these days are largely corporations.
>
For example, the internet (oops, that was government). How about
Antarctica stations (oops, government again). Oh, robotic Mars
exploration (oops, government again). Well, there was the private
railroads that opened Western US (oops, with massive government
subsidies). What about airplanes (oops, massive government subsidies)
Communication satellites (oops, government again). Oh, Earth resources
satellites (darn, that was government too). Of course, computers
(well, actually, the early computers were created by -- government).
You get the picture.
Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 08:33 PM, Brad Walsh wrote:
> before
> NASA or ESA the Japanese, because they don't suffer these constraints
> (short term thinking) on
> their investments.
>
Then how can you explain the undoubted fact that the US has invested
orders-of-magnitude more than China in space and kept this investment
going for 40 years?
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 09:20 PM, Ryan Z wrote:
> are countless examples of companies will to 10 years
> out for large profits. Look into mining operation,
In this case, they know the market is there and that the project is
feasible.
> look into IBM research labs, look at the ole at&t labs
> before ma bell was broken up,
The nice thing about research labs is that there are MANY possibilities
for profitable products and you can pull the plug at any time
> look at the
> establishment of LEO constellations.
Bad example. All the LEO constellations went bankrupt.
> The list goes on
> and on.
>
The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
> > This is why I think China will establish Lunar and Martian colonies
> > before
> > NASA or ESA the Japanese, because they don't suffer these constraints
> > (short term thinking) on
> > their investments.
> >
>Then how can you explain the undoubted fact that the US has invested
>orders-of-magnitude more than China in space and kept this investment
>going for 40 years?
light of the cancellations and draconian cuts in just about every NASA
project proposed in the last 30 years, how can you say we've kept the
investment going since 1969? Just because the doors are still open at KSFC,
JSC, JPL and Marshall doesn't mean NASA is burgeoning; starving would be a
better descriptor.
Don't get me wrong, I don't blame NASA for any of that--it's the incongruous
Congress that can't seem to see past their own reelection, and the
shortsightedness of the voting public in general. It's that kind of
pressure that China doesn't face, nor does it have to please the
even-shorter-sided stockholders. A command economy, for all its
disastrously bad allocative inefficiencies and inhuman cruelties, does have
the power to be far-sighted.
Brad W.
On Monday, September 15, 2003, at 03:08 PM, Brad Walsh wrote:
>>> before
>>> NASA or ESA the Japanese, because they don't suffer these constraints
>>> (short term thinking) on
>>> their investments.
>>>
>>
>> Then how can you explain the undoubted fact that the US has invested
>> orders-of-magnitude more than China in space and kept this investment
>> going for 40 years?
>
> China just started any kind of permanent space program 10 years ago.
> And in
> light of the cancellations and draconian cuts in just about every NASA
> project proposed in the last 30 years, how can you say we've kept the
> investment going since 1969? Just because the doors are still open at
> KSFC,
> JSC, JPL and Marshall doesn't mean NASA is burgeoning; starving would
> be a
> better descriptor.
>
I've worked at NASA Ames since 1979. NASA has received a budget
increase very nearly every year since I've been there. There were some
cuts (in the overall budget) in 90's, but the budget is over $15
billion today -- the highest it has ever been. Would we like more
money? Of course. But the US has poured enormous amounts of money into
the space program and there have been lots, and lots, of successes; far
more than any other country, or combination of countries, except
Russia/USSR.
The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~150 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.
--- Al Globus wrote:
> I've worked at NASA Ames since 1979. NASA has
> received a budget
> increase very nearly every year since I've been
> there. There were some
> cuts (in the overall budget) in 90's, but the budget
> is over $15
> billion today -- the highest it has ever been.
> Would we like more
> money? Of course. But the US has poured enormous
> amounts of money into
> the space program and there have been lots, and
> lots, of successes; far
> more than any other country, or combination of
> countries, except
> Russia/USSR.
>
When taking into account inflation, the increase in
NASA budget has not been quite as rosy, but the rest
of the points hold.
is their dedication to science. Sure, we always seem
to focus on the human program because we are largely
concerned with space settlement in this group, but
NASA as a whole is a great proponent and funder of
science. To reiterate Al's point of NASA
achievements, look at:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/index.htm
What other country comes close to this accomplishment?
Ryan Z
--- Al Globus wrote:
> I've worked at NASA Ames since 1979. NASA has
> received a budget
> increase very nearly every year since I've been
> there. There were some
> cuts (in the overall budget) in 90's, but the budget
> is over $15
> billion today -- the highest it has ever been.
> Would we like more
> money? Of course. But the US has poured enormous
> amounts of money into
> the space program and there have been lots, and
> lots, of successes; far
> more than any other country, or combination of
> countries, except
> Russia/USSR.
>
When taking into account inflation, the increase in
NASA budget has not been quite as rosy, but the rest
of the points hold.
is their dedication to science. Sure, we always seem
to focus on the human program because we are largely
concerned with space settlement in this group, but
NASA as a whole is a great proponent and funder of
science. To reiterate Al's point of NASA
achievements, look at:
http://spacescience.nasa.gov/missions/index.htm
What other country comes close to this accomplishment?
Ryan Z
On Friday 12 September 2003 20:11, victoriatangoman wrote:
(...)
> Just waiting for some news from Brazil to make for a Trifecta :)
India - we don't even have a satellite launcher that works yet.
However, recently President Da Silva had a "Kennedy Moment": he criticized the
pessimists that believe that we'll never get off-ground (a kind of people
specially active after the accident in Alcntara Base) and said something
like "Be sure that Brazil will become a country with mastery in space
technology", along with promises of increasing the budget and
building-and-testing another launcher prototype ASAP. Hope that will be
true...
> TangoMan
(...)
Lucio Coelho
>However, recently President Da Silva had a "Kennedy Moment": he criticized
>the
>pessimists that believe that we'll never get off-ground (a kind of people
>specially active after the accident in Alcntara Base) and said something
>like "Be sure that Brazil will become a country with mastery in space
>technology", along with promises of increasing the budget and
>building-and-testing another launcher prototype ASAP. Hope that will be
>true...
this, but condolences to you and all your nation on the accident last month.
I'm sure we'd all agree that the loss of national treasure and lives is
even more painful when it strikes those who seek to raise thier nation's
gaze above their daily lives and up to their future in the stars. Let us
hope that Mr. da Silva's words come true speedily and smoothly.
Brad W.