Re: Nasa is Planning the "ESCAPE FROM PLANET EARTH"
- From: "blart" <walkergwm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:14:50 GMT
Indeed 100+ billion for a one-off stunt stinks.
I wonder how much of this is phunney munney destined for other climes and
'projects'
We will NEVER know!
I think that there needs to be less stunt to try and head off the Chinese,
and more exploitation with concordant competition,
where the average Joe can participate and everyone profits (yup even the
chinese!).
NASA and the government seem to desperately want to keep space as exclusive
as possible for as long as possible.
Kinda understandable in a cold war way, but the cat is out of the bag now!
It is just a matter of time before the commercial exploitation of space is
roaring ahead and NASA is left in the dust... and no amount of stuntery or
covert or overt action will stem the tide.
Shame really.
IMHO, what made America great was the little guy, the Rutans and others,
rattling the cage and giving an 'impossible' job a severe scare. This way is
the only way now IMHO, that we will ever get manned space exploitation,
since NASA seems to be retreating into stuntery
but
Is it possible to to this sort of thing now in the neo-communist era of
massive feudal corporations, brutally defending their slice of the pie, and
their status quo?
are we moving from pax americana into a pseudo pax corporama, with a world
locked in perpetual 'small scale' conflict in order to keep inventory
moving?
yikes, give me the peaceful 'aimless' exploitation of space anyday!
"jonathan" <write@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GjWZe.7847$eB3.5096@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Neil Halelamien" <neuronexmachina@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1127678321.423737.279200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>> The Washington Post has an interview with NASA Head Mike Griffin in
>> which he discusses his views on space colonization:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092301691.html
>>
>> A few quotes:
>>
>> "But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about
>> extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar
>> system as we go forward in time. . . .
>
>
>
> Isn't is also about benefiting the human race down here
> on earth? How is this generic scientific exploration going
> to change things for the better? Or is simply gathering 'data'
> and end in itself?
>
>
>
>
>> In the long run a single-planet
>> species will not survive.
>
>
> In order to justify a long term investment that yields ....zero...
> returns for anyone but themselves, the long term is redefined
> to mean 50,000 years, or is it one million?
>
> How convenient.
>
>
>
>
>> We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species
>> have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30
>> million years. ... We don't know of any other species anywhere, but
>> while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I
>> can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet
>> species don't."
>>
>> "Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of
>> laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and
>> spread humankind.
>
>
>
> So the goal is to propagate the species then? I can think
> of another term for what this program is doing to the taxpayers.
>
>
>
>> I think that's worth doing. There will be another
>> mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of
>> thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other
>> planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely
>> conceivable. We're in the infancy of it."
>>
>> "I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is,
>
>
>
> Could you at least tell us what those four astronauts will be
> doing on the Moon? Collecting more rocks, building a shack?
> What? Why are they going there?
>
>
>
>> but
>> there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We
>> may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on
>> the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making
>> habitats on asteroids.
>
>
>
> Once we run out of oil, food and our climate is swinging from
> steam to ice...yes...we'll probably go to those places.
> The entire point is to prevent those things from happening
> so we don't ....have....to evacuate.
>
> How is Nasa's long term goal in any way help these earthly
> problems our future is sure to expose?
>
>
>> We've got places that humans will go, not in our
>> lifetime, but they will go there."
>
>
> Success for this program will only be measured in centuries.
> In other words since there are no real goals being set, there
> is nothing that needs to be accomplished. Perfect!
> No objective way at all to determine whether this program
> is meeting/exceeding or failing expectations in return for
> the money. Since there are none.
>
> How convenient.
>
>
>>
>> "generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize
>> the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than
>> in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe.
>> Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the
>> shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent
>> we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle."
>
>
> So Nasa is mountain climbing. For the sake of it, just because
> it's there. This policy statement merely means we are not
> even contemplating the exploitation of space or related
> technology. We are not in the mountain 'mining' phase, just
> still climbing, look around, take a few pictures
> and go home.
>
>
> Then we can all toast these elite explorers for their grand
> adventure. Kind of like the peasants cheering the return
> of their King from an exotic hunt. Look at all the strange
> things! Wow.
>
> For Nasa to call this a 'vision' is pornographic.
>
> Unless Nasa's goal is wrapped around ....OUR...future
> not there own careers, it is a vision of space that has as it's
> goal the exploitation of ....us.
>
> This, or something like it, is what we should be doing
> with the new hardware.
>
> Space Solar Power Home
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
>
>
> This administrator is a yes man for the White House.
> President Bush gets to completely reorganize Nasa
> through his limited and militaristic lens. And in return
> Nasa gets promises for future missions that other
> administrations will have to honor.
>
> I imagine President Bush told 'em, "plan any mission you
> want" if you'll implement my 'vision'. Why not, he knows
> some other President will have to fund them, so they'll
> never happen.
>
> Nasa gets it's wish list...or so it thinks.
>
> What fools. Unless Nasa's goals inspire everyone
> at once, they have no legs at all. Solving our energy
> future qualifies. As it bring America future independence
> and prosperity. It would bring stability to global warming.
> It would reduce wars over diminishing resources.
> It would help bring electricity and prosperity to the
> entire world.
>
> And ya know what, we'd probable have to go to the
> Moon anyways to pull it all off. Only difference is that
> now we'd have a reason to see it through. A reason to
> fund it for the long term.
>
>
> Nasa
> Main Entry: pur·pose·less
> Pronunciation: -l&s
> Function: adjective
> : having no purpose : AIMLESS, MEANINGLESS
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
>
>
>
>
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Size of the proposed "new" space vehicle?
- Next by Date: Griffin admits shuttle and ISS a mistake
- Previous by thread: Why not two?
- Next by thread: Griffin admits shuttle and ISS a mistake
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
