Is humanity quietly abandoning a futuin space?

On 4/17/12 6:53 PM, sraj wrote:

> Is humanity quietly abandoning a future in space?
> http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/space-future-idINDEE83G0FP20120417

I found this a rather silly article. The Shuttle was an overpriced,
underperforming vehicle with little purpose other than a big government
jobs program. Good riddance to it!

The authors spends most of the article mentally equating "space" with
"government programs." It points out that NASA won't have another
manned launcher ready until 2017 (which I suspect is an optimistic
estimate), and fails to point out that SpaceX is working on Dragon Rider
now, and will probably have it ready for flight well before then -- and
it will be cheaper and more capable (by most measures) than what NASA
builds.

To their credit, they do make passing mention of private space
companies, followed by doubt that they will ever amount to anything. It
is as if, in 1950, one were to lament the reduced funding of government
computer research programs, and doubt that commercial computer work
would ever amount to much. Which is to say, entirely missing the point.

This part was especially amusing (and sad at the same time):

> "I think it's essentially a binary choice," says John Logsdon,
> veteran space historian and now a professor at the Space Policy
> Institute at George Washington University. "In 50 years time, we will
> either have Antarctica-style research stations elsewhere in the solar
> system or the era of government-funded manned space exploration will
> be over for good."

I think Logsdon's vision here is woefully pessimistic. In 50 years
time, we could (and should) have a helluva lot more than
Antarctica-style research stations. I'm expecting a thriving civilian
economy by then. I know, I'm sounding like a gushing space enthusiast,
but I wouldn't have said such things 10 years ago -- I was myself rather
pessimistic at the time. But things have changed: (1) Bush lifted the
Moon taboo (just about the best thing to come out of his entire
administration); (2) real commercial space has started to bend metal,
with Bigelow, Virgin, and SpaceX all quite notable; and (3) the Shuttle
has finally been retired, leaving us in the very awkward and beneficial
position of having to rely on the Soviets until commercial alternatives
come online. These are all really important steps that break the old
negative cycles, and give the proper positive feedback loops a kick. I
feel we're crossing a hump now, and expect that the whole industry will
continue to pick up momentum in the years to come.

Sraj wrote:

> One possibility is to pool resources under the ambit of the United
> Nations. A lot of countries do not have their own space programs, but
> could contribute money.

Let them contribute money in the form of payment for launch services (or
orbital services, or cislunar facilities, or whatever they need), to
whomever is able to provide such service in the most affordable and
reliable manner. That will be far more effective, in the long run, than
passing it around or pooling it among governments.

Best,
- Joe