Re: The job of NASA

On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 03:03:31PM -0500, Jonathan wrote:

<ohara5.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:410a1588-3c8c-4acd-8379-38dc829f3ef2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

NASA has such
huge infrastructure and overhead that there is no way they will EVER
get cheap space
flight, it simply cannot be done by them. This is not criticism of
NASA but simply
a statement of fact. We rely in NASA to do costly cutting edge stuff,
let business
make it cheap.



Typical linear thought processes, you look at what NASA
is now, and conclude doing more is just too much, just
too hard. Linear thinking means looking at the present
reality and extrapolating that into the future.

Can you see the ultimate futility of classical methods?
Reality is so messy, and plotting the future path
of such a grand mess is ...well...even worse, so much so
as to seem overwhelming.

Linear...classical...reductionist..part driven thinking
leads to such limited horizons.

It leads to cynical outlooks and short-term 'solutions'
our 'modern' science is famous for.

A non-linear view would look at the future first, not
the real world, it would design the ideal solution not
to our current problems, but for the perfect future.
Once you have that future vision properly
constructed, it then becomes trivial to draw a
path from the present to that idealized future.
I mean, it's simple, you can't plot a path using only
our present reality as reference. And divining history
is as difficult as the future, due to all the random
interactions and critical points inherent in
nature.

Any critical point, like a big bang, erases all that
came before. Reality is one critical point after another.
But that doesn't compute so 'modern' science refuses
to accept the truths of our existence and blindly
continues to beat their heads against one brick
wall after another.

Don't you see the difference? One method takes
an incomprehensible mess and tries to predict
it's future wanderings....pahleeease!

The other designs the path we...should...be following
into the future, and insists everything we do converges
towards that goal.

One method throws their hands into the air in futility.
The other knows there's no such thing as an objective
reality, it's what we make of it.

One methods destroys the world, the other builds
the wondrous future we are destined to find
...and sooner rather than later.

I don't care what NASA can't or can do today.

I care about what it could be doing tomorrow.
All that is needed is to find the best solution
to...this problem...and allow the simplicity and
elegance of the correct goal take care
of the rest.

What ShOULD NASA be doing?

Acquiring sufficient funding to finance your hypothetical future-ideal
space missions. Next question?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The job of NASA
    ... get cheap space ... This is not criticism of ... We rely in NASA to do costly cutting edge stuff, ... Reality is so messy, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Deep Impact Kicks Off Fourth of July with Deep Space Fireworks
    ... him to carve a statue from an entire mountain. ... We are talking science ... The apolitical engineers don't realize that NASA ... > as well as their ability to interpret reality. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Rudeness on reality TV
    ... personality to hit out at "car crash" reality television, ... But criticism by people who know what they're talking ... words it is the Editor and not the panel who's reaction we are seeing. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Einstein swinging from a rope
    ... I did look at the NASA page about the clocks. ... incompetent from discovering the link between electromagnetism and gravity. ... Today the guy took a hybrid car getting about 50mpg and increased it to ... grossly affecting the reality that we perceive. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rudeness on reality TV
    ... personality to hit out at "car crash" reality television, ... But criticism by people who know what they're talking ... There's crude humour and there's crude humour. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
Loading