Spaceward ho!

Oh man, while that isn't the only thing to depress me about this subject, it sure is a pretty large source.Recently I heard someone suggest it would take such a long time to develop today because we had lost the technology (its been decades since we did anything). And that just didn't make any sense. Its not like we lost the files of what we had before, and more importantly the people in the 50's didn't have anything to work from.We have better data and materials. It should be easier and faster.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Possibly one factor is how much safer it HAS to be now. You couldn't get away with a 50% moon-shot success prediction More like 99.5% these days. That said, it still amazes me how few astronauts the US lost up to the end of the Apollo programme.

Not just Bush Sr. Just about every president since Kenedy made a promise of some kind about the space program but never went through with it. Hell, the original goal, if anyone here remember at all, was that we were suppose to have a man on mars by the end of the 20th century. And yet for 30 years our space program went from being in orbit around Earth to, well, being in orbit around Earth. Look at it this way, there is no doubt that Social Security is facing some serious danger in the near future. And eventually somebody will have to do some cutbacks to fill in the holes. Actually, the holes are already there. If anything, someone on top has already thought this through and made the decision to go ahead with the new space program knowing it ain't going to go anywhere due to budget deficits. In other words, there ain't no milk to milk in the first place.

Is there a major difference in how many people have been lost over the length of space exploration? Have we lost more per space flight in recent times? This is not rhetorical, I'd like to know. And if so, is there a reason for the change?Perhaps I should include all space programs, and not just the US.In any case, I understand what you mean by our increasing safety expectations hampering exploration. Our reaction to the challenger disaster was base cowardice to my mind. This is going to be risky and we should be empowering those (like me) willing to take such risks, until their efforts result in something relatively safe for everyone.Then again we had already gotten sidetracked with the shuttle program, and I'm not exactly sure why that was.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Please don't make a grown man cry.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Well if govts decide to stay on the ground, perhaps enterprising individuals like Branson will push things forward. While still suborbital, his virgingalactic line is pushing tourist limits farther into space.Here's a link to his version of a shuttle for tourists. Note that esthetics have definitely been considered on the interior. Although one might call it somewhat sterile, it looks clean, comfy, and "futuristic"... sort of alien organic chic.Check out the multimedia file at that page to see how the full "ride" is supposed to go. I'm curious how easy it is to barf with those cool helmets when certain tourists hit 0g. Hope the faceplates open a bit.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

In this case NASA, Congress, and Bush (no head for science, but an MBA) were determined to avoid the boom-and-bust cycle of space funding. There are many good reasons to want to do this, of course, but one that especially interested the government types was keeping qualified people reliably employed at NASA. This prevents the agency from constantly having to go hunt up qualified people it laid off five years earlier. Even more importnat: it encourages the international 'brain drain' to keep draining in America's direction. There are other space agencies.You'll notice how the Vision document gives more emphasis to funding than similar NASA documents for projects in the past. It shows steady progress and steady money. The deal is that NASA lives within a certain amount of means and it can count on the means. Leaders in both parties who serve on the relevant Congressional committees have approved the plans and signed onto this.The result is a program that pushes forward in definite stages but with flexible deadlines. (The moon landing deadline is 'between 2015 and 2020' rather than 'before his decade is out'). The program uses proven technology: shuttle rockets and Saturn J-2 the Ares boosters, tried-and-true heat shield technology for Orion. Big goals with proven technology. This not only means greater safety, it allows more accurate estimates of cost. The ocntinuity in technology also allows everyone to keep working as the shuttle is phased out and Orion starts up. Minimal down time.One can spot some negative lessons learned. The approach NASA is taking in this new initiative is the complete opposite of everything the agency did in planning the shuttle in the late 70s. Then you had a big leap in technology but modest goals. Nothing flew for several years before the shuttle was ready, when it arrived overdue and over budget. Other projects got axed to fund it (additional Skylab missions, unmanned boosters). And, as we all know, it turned out to be a risky, labor-intensive, and expensive way to loft anything into orbit. The shuttle was never the cheap, reliable 'space truck' NASA said it would be.NASA is making a much better start this time around. I look forward to it.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Although this may be a benefit, I do wonder if this concerned them at all.As far as I could tell Bush and Co became interested after mainland China began its space program with ends that could not be ignored. They were suddenly in a position to out distance us in a technological and strategic sense.It seems to me like the space race all over again, but without some inspirational message from the president to charge the nation.Up until the Chinese stated their goals the Bush administration appeared to want space research cut back, with missions primarily involving political, religious, and military significance.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Me: holmes: How does this contradict what I said? You are making my point for me.I said 'there are other space agencies.' And yes, China's is one. Europe and Japan also have increasingly ambitious space programs. Talented engineers from China or India or the UAE--or from Taiwan--have choices now. NASA's not the only game in town.NASA has a great history, but if it continued much longer just bopping around in low earth-orbit with a last-century spaceplane that has already killed 14 people, well... let's just say there are more inspiring projects for smart young scientists beginning careers.A turning point was reached, too, with the Columbia disaster. It forced decisions about the shuttle. Originally NASA expected to fly the shuttles much longer. I think calling it quits for the shuttle after the ISS is completed is exactly the right idea. Anything extension of the shuttle program beyond that is just begging for trouble.There's another pressure, too, that NASA's new administrators feel keenly. The generation that went to the moon is passing on in larger numbers. Had they delayed making plans for a return trip any longer, an untold amount of experience would be lost. That experience is an asset that is priceless, and it is uniquely America's. What NASA project are you thinking of that had 'primarily religious significance'?_Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

I don't think I was trying to contradict what you said, but to suggest that "brain drain" issues were not of overt concern to Bush and Co.My opinion is that they would have let talent move overseas to the detriment of US programs, except for the fact that China reached a point where their program could begin posing a military threat. I agree. I just noticed a typo in my earlier post within your quote, it should have said "and/or" instead of "and". I did not mean to suggest all missions were to have all three features. Many were military.The Columbia was a mission with religious/political overtones. It involved the first Israeli astronaut, and he was carrying on board a torah which had survived the holocaust. There was also a devout Xian, can't remember if he was evangelical. These issues were highly touted at the time where I was living in the US. Bush and IIRC Sharon went on about the politico-religious significance of this mission, especially given the problems at the time.This did not change after the disaster with Bush using the event to prosyletize.In another issue. a minor scandal arose when it was found an appointee with no real credentials besides alliance to Bush and Co was pressing for revision of language from NASA research to bring it in line with creationist tastes.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

holmes: Ok. Got it now.I concur with this. It seems China's space program administered the clue-by-four that made Bush teachable on this issue. Until then it seemed like the ISS project got scaled back further each day. Around the same time I noticed a heightened federal interest in the health of higher education as well. This was long overdue.The US has a tendency, when state and federal governments 'get serious about education', to 'get serious' about K-12 at the expense of America's colleges and universities. But those colleges and universities are one of America's most important exports, if you will. They draw people from all around the world. Once in your country, many of those people are willing to stay and work. (This goes to the tenth power for students from China. They smile and say everything Big Brother wants to hear about the virtues of their home country--but none of them intend to return.)The US has benefited spectacularly from this 'brain drain' over the years. Many advantages it enjoys militarily and technologically spring from it. It would be a blunder of lasting proportions to let that atrophy.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Did you just make that up, or did you get that from somewhere? Awesome. Yep, physical science depts I've been around were usually teaming with Chinese, almost all from mainland. That was cool by me and I had several friends from there. One had moved his entire family over and it didn't look like there was any intention of leaving.A relative of mine married a scientist from there, who is planning on staying here permanently, and it almost sounds as if her family may start spending more time here.Perhaps future space and tech races will be won by the Chinese no matter which national flag gets planted. Just like the Germans won the first space race.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

The expression "clue-by-four" has been in use among anti-spam groups for some time, though its origins might be earlier. You might want to look it up on google. While you are about it, check google for lumber cartel.TINLC

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Boy does that bring back memories. About when I moved from tin to pine.TINLC

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sheesh am I out of touch. I think its pretty catchy though.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)