Posted on 09/28/2005 9:02:35 AM PDT by anymouse
The US space agency NASA lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on the space shuttle and International Space Station, NASA chief Michael Griffin reportedly said.
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told USA Today: "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."
Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."
Griffin announced September 19 that the United States will send four astronauts to the moon in 2018 in a major return to its pioneering manned missions into space.
Actual sequence of events
1. Russia sees it can't hold Alaska with the Spanish, the Brits, and the Americans coming closer every day. The Brits were already in Alaska.
2. Russia decides to unload the territory where it will do the least harm, and America is getting closer every day in spite of their internal war and might simply take Alaska for free.
3. Russia chooses to sell to America, as the Brits and the Spanish are all competing with Russia on the Euro continent and are a more immediate danger. America is a danger, too, but not immediate; besides America is at war with itself at the moment and has the cash due to French, Brit, and Spanish war investment.
If it can NOT be applicable to anything even 10-20 years down the road then WHY is it being done?
"So that we know" and "so that we better understand" doesn't cut it anymore if there is no foreseeable use for the information.
If we cannot even live comfortably and indefinitely in orbit and get to and fro safely (as the current situation evidences) even just for the purposes of freefall experimentation then all the rest of it can be put aside until such time as its use is relevant.
IMO:
step 1) permanent Earth-orbit habitation WITH an iron-clad (and affordable) method of frequent transportation and supply.
step 2) the same goal around the Moon (obvious benefit of an orbital station first: rad shielding 50% of the time in orbit by the Moon's mass)
step 3) okay, NOW you can have an installation on the surface - a good place to work-out all the kinks expected in a longer-duration Mars mission (having an emergency 300k miles away is somewhat nicer than one around the opposite side of the Sun - you're only a few days from home)
God has nothing to do with it - He can ask His own questions if He has any.
Columbus was looking to make money and fame, and do it on Ferdy's & Bell's money instead of his own (the resulting syphilus epidemic was on-the-house).
Maxwell's early work dealt with the structure and behavior of Saturn's rings. His contributions to the study of gases is well known. His work on electricity and electromagnetism was based upon, and was an extension of, Faraday's theories. JCM only theorized about radio waves - Hertz discovered them. ALL of that: natural, observable, phenomena.
Regarding ballistics and computers: the computers existed. Is it any wonder that all kinds of things would be tried on them and some would consequently evolve the computer industry to what it is today? Manual ballistics calculators had been around for years (tables and slipsticks were used in both World Wars) and it is natural that the new computers would be used for faster calculations. Would computers have died-on-the-vine if the need for improved ballistics computations was nonexistent? Certainly not!
"Forging a destiny in the stars" is a pretty ideal; but there's a HELL of a lot of ground work that currently ISN'T being accomplished (and COULD be) to help humanity GET THERE.
So we can make the effort to start the process. I see no logical reason to impose a 10-20 year time limit on knowledge and learning. Good things often take time. There are more than a few discoveries and applications that took longer to bring to fruition.
"So that we know" and "so that we better understand" doesn't cut it anymore if there is no foreseeable use for the information.
Placing limits on what we can learn is a sure way to stifle progress. I think we owe it to future generations to learn what we can when we have the means and pass that information along, so they will be that much further ahead in building a better world (or worlds).
When a people begins to prefer shortsightedness over the long view, when we choose to look inward rather than outward, when we value material comfort over bettering ourselves and building a better life for our progeny, then we are going the way that many civilizations throughout history that have fallen have gone. Will America choose a similar path, or will we seek a greater destiny, something that goes beyond short-term visions? It is a grave choice and I hope we make the right one.
If we cannot even live comfortably and indefinitely in orbit and get to and fro safely (as the current situation evidences) even just for the purposes of freefall experimentation then all the rest of it can be put aside until such time as its use is relevant.
IMO: step 1) permanent Earth-orbit habitation WITH an iron-clad (and affordable) method of frequent transportation and supply. step 2) the same goal around the Moon (obvious benefit of an orbital station first: rad shielding 50% of the time in orbit by the Moon's mass) step 3) okay, NOW you can have an installation on the surface - a good place to work-out all the kinks expected in a longer-duration Mars mission (having an emergency 300k miles away is somewhat nicer than one around the opposite side of the Sun - you're only a few days from home)
Certainly an valid alternative view to the current situation and plans that have been put forth. Worth considering.
God has nothing to do with it - He can ask His own questions if He has any.
The context of my comment about God was to allude to the dangers of placing undue weight on quick monetary return. I'm sure God already has the answers to any other questions.
Columbus was looking to make money and fame, and do it on Ferdy's & Bell's money instead of his own (the resulting syphilus epidemic was on-the-house).
The point was that while Columbus may have started out with these short-term goals, he could not have known the long-term implications of what he was undertaking. The long-term objective of developing a viable, alternate trade route was likely done with a vision that went beyond a 10-20 year timeline.
Maxwell's early work dealt with the structure and behavior of Saturn's rings. His contributions to the study of gases is well known. His work on electricity and electromagnetism was based upon, and was an extension of, Faraday's theories. JCM only theorized about radio waves - Hertz discovered them. ALL of that: natural, observable, phenomena.
And both Faraday and Maxwell went about their business in all likelihood not knowing the long-term payoffs of their work. I doubt if either of them had in mind getting rich off of a telecommunications industry yet to be developed. But they did not cease their labors simply because they could not see a quick, ready turnaround on development of the knowledge they gained.
The work in did in lunar geology also involved natural, observable phenomena. What will come of it other than what we have already contributed to understanding in the field I know not. Maybe something more, maybe not. But I do not see that as being sufficient reason to quit.
Regarding ballistics and computers: the computers existed. Is it any wonder that all kinds of things would be tried on them and some would consequently evolve the computer industry to what it is today? Manual ballistics calculators had been around for years (tables and slipsticks were used in both World Wars) and it is natural that the new computers would be used for faster calculations. Would computers have died-on-the-vine if the need for improved ballistics computations was nonexistent? Certainly not!
My point was that knowledge and discovery moved forward beyond the initial limited vision. People working back then did not have the vision of the field we have today. But the key to moving the technology forward was NOT to impose arbitrary time limits on learning and development, and certainly not to listen to those who said it either could not be done or there was no reason to do it because we had all we needed to do at the time. Likewise, what we are doing today in space exploration and development may look, to us, like it is a useless endeavor, that we won't get a payoff in 10 years, so why bother? But if the history of science and technology teaches us anything, it is that we should not use that as a reason to cease learning everything we can, knowing full well that we often do not fully realize the fruits of our labors in any arbitrary timeframe.
"Forging a destiny in the stars" is a pretty ideal; but there's a HELL of a lot of ground work that currently ISN'T being accomplished (and COULD be) to help humanity GET THERE.
But there also is a lot of ground work being accomplished. And there will be more that will be accomplished. Those labors should not cease and I see no reason why we should not pursue parallel paths. I've said it before and I will say it again, I do not buy into this false dilemma of either/or. There is plenty of work to be done in both arenas, and we can do it, if we have the will and the vision. I fear if one or the other or both fail to be accomplished, it will be for lack of these.
I personally would have liked to see us continue with manned moon exploration and a permanent station, with the space station in a higher orbit able to support the moon base. By this time – 36 years after our first moon landing – we would have been well on our way to safely taking on Mars.
I'm not sure of the intent of your parenthetical phrase, or how much weight to give it, but surely you can't mean this as a general statement. Private industry doesn't reward failure, but punishes it? What planet are you living on? Have you never heard of Carly Fiorina?
I have worked for any number of companies where incompetence is rewarded, primarily because of who the incompetent person is. The only people that seem to suffer are the ones who are productive and do the work. They usually get the boot if a project fails, even if it isn't their fault.
Nah. The "investors" never had a say in that deal. The BoD paid her off so they could cover their own butts. A bunch of spineless wimps. Better to admit you made a mistake and fire the person who cornholed your company instead of sending them off to wreak another company with another $20 mil in their pockets.
I'm sure she lost quite a bit in stock options, that she would have received had she done the job right.
Maybe. Shoulda woulda. But all I know is I could get by quite nicely on a $20 mil bonus for screwing up, stock options or no.
... but certainly the government gets it wrong almost always - and never generates a greater return on investment (taxes) than private industry which is expected to day in and day out.
Well, I don't know about that. I was part of a government-university-industry technology development program that came up with quite a bit of new technology in the radiation imaging field. Some of that was commercialized and is quite widespread now in the commercial sector. No, there wasn't a direct refund of taxpayer dollars for the "government" portion of the funding, but there was quite a bit of indirect payback. Development of new technology, manufacture of various products, jobs created, tax revenues generated by increased economic activity, things like that. In short, the kind of good stuff you'd like to see government (as a partner, in this case) doing.
Just pointing it out...
I know. I have already commented on the tourist on a thread, but there were no responses. He is apparently an insider and tight with military, NASA and ESA. The UFO community is also watching him because of some hope that he is independent and that his infrared experiments are directed towards UFO research, but that doesn't seem likely to be happening.
I was just noticing how $20M doesn't buy what it used to.
He's a working scientist all right. Subject of some medical experiments for ESA. Also, he has brought one of his infrared cameras, his own design, for his own purpose.
Somehow, I don't think he'll be fronted the money by a science grant, unless he does what I have seen some very rich do--start their own foundations in order to send themselves on fancy camping trips in the name of "science." Example--paying to go to Antarctica at $50K a pop, searching for a meteorite, not finding one, and writing it off to "charity". Then deduct the cost of the ticket. Is that what Olsen is doing? Does he have a "foundation" that he can write off this ticket to?
I am sure Olsen is fully practiced in the art of transaction costs. He owns his own company and might indeed think of this as not a hobby but an positioning investment to enlarge his credit opportunities. One thing for sure, he was unknown outside his business last week and now he is known worldwide. At 60 he might be just getting started, the next railroad mogul.
My point was that there is little to no interest in this latest tour-d'-space--why I posted to you in the first place. He doesn't seem to be much more worldwide than he was before. This surprised me, the lack of prominent coverage. I'm a news junkie, I pay attn to space news, and the launch passed completely under my reading radar. I only found out y'day that he was already at the SS.
The attention dropoff since Shuttleworth (was that his name? Cuttleworth? I'll look it up later, but his name sounds something like that) bought his ticket is steeper than I expected.
But, NASA is preparing to launch some robotic moon explorers beginning in 2-3 years. Something like Surveyor on steroids. They'll learn more from that than from the actual Apollo Ver. 2, and probably spend 5-10% of their moon budget in the process. Marshall and Goddard are on the team. Might be some hiring for those who want their career wrapped in plastic.
Well, that's interesting, I guess. Except that we've already been there and done that. Why can't we send then, instead, to one of the moons of Jupiter, or to Mercury?
Did you know that Deep Impact is still out there, and operational? The team expected that it probably would not survive the mission, but planned for the possibility that it might. There are many pondering what to do now with this "freebie" already in position to do some exploring. That's what you can get when you don't have to bring them back.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.