Reviving a web-based SSI?

> I wonder if SSI would consider a "merger" with the National Space
> Society - there are already two special-interest chapters with
> world-wide membership (on space medicine and space elevators) and I'm
> aware of others that are being considered. NSS's origins are in part
> with the L5 Society, which was also based on O'Neill's orbital colony
> ideas. NSS provides quite a few online facilities to chapters, including
> have more direct access to a larger number of people.
>
> But that would largely be up to Lee Valentine I suppose - the ideal time
> to merge might be around the time of next year's ISDC meeting in
> Washington DC (May 2005).
>
> In the interests of disclosure - I'm running for an NSS regional board
> position, and I also met and had lunch with Freeman Dyson a few years
> ago. But we didn't talk about SSI then.

I really need to go to sleep, but I just saw this as I was finishing up,
and I want to say, and with no right as not being an L5 member, and no
complete information having not joined the NSS (because of a planetary
focus), that I think the L5 merger with the NSS was one of the worst
things to happen for space habitats, since NSS seems pretty Mars
oriented, and I got the feeling reading publications (when I decided to
join L5 and then found out it merged) that the L5 mission just
evaporated under NSS. Just look at the NSS home page -- Moon, Mars,
where is asteroids or space habitats?

If SSI was to dissolve, I'd rather see it's assets go to LUF.
http://www.luf.org/
At least they have a diversity of habitat ideas.

Or The Space Frontier Foundation:
http://www.space-frontier.org/

Although I'd rather see it do the SR seed project I outlined. :-) Well,
and add in the sort of web outreach Michael Mautner outlines, why not,
especially if those older works could become free.

Anyway, don't mean to sound too harsh. Maybe if NSS decide to change
their direction or signed some contract promising some level of
attention to asteroids and space habitats, then maybe it could be
reasonable. But, as with most mergers, really what is the benefit for
NSS? Clearly the SSI "brand" would be tossed, along with the Board, many
members probably overlap, so what is in it for NSS? A little PR? Some
assets or copyrights? Absorbing non-overlapping members? Getting a
probably out-of-date mailing list? I guess and I can see a special Space
Power special interest group. That would probably interest many on this
list or the previous membership. And that could potentially be separate
from an asteroids or space habitats groups. Or an SR technology group.
Anyway, you might have to have several special interest groups to cover
all of SSI's main points.

For me, part of my interest in reviving SSI is admittedly sentimental; I
used to be a Senior Associate-level supporter, I took a course from
Gerry (admittedly, for "Poets"), enjoyed the conferences, liked the link
to a school I attended (Princeton). Plus he called me a "dreamer" for
proposing self-replicating space habitats instead of his slow economic
expansion plan, so I'll get even ;-) if/when I realize that dream (and
so his too!). But frankly, the SSPS/capitalist emphasis of SSI may be
too much for me to counter, and might be a better match for someone who
wanted to work with that rather than discard it (so, perhaps NSS or SFF
or LUF).

--Paul Fernhout