#31
|
|||
|
|||
Except for a few fanatics over on spacepolitics.com, there's hardly anyone saying that the Commercial Sector should take over all of HSF. What NASA has in mind is the commercial sector taking over the ISS support mission, first with cargo, then crew rotation. They'd rather spend the money buying the service from American companies rather than the Russians. The Russians aren't happy at the prospect, as you'd expect. Congress views the commercial sector as the least of two bad options (they'd rather have NASA handle the mission, but know the money's not there). NASA would have oversight of commercial flights to ISS re: crew safety, and the FAA would be overseeing other aspects of U.S. commercial space flights-whether it's for NASA, another space agency (NASA is in charge of safety for all NASA-sponsored astronauts-the Japanese, ESA, Canadians, etc.), or a space tourism flight. Congress, though, insisted in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that Orion be capable of backing up the private sector if they can't handle the mission, and Lockheed-Martin (Orion's prime contractor) has said that they can man-rate an existing rocket by 2014 if they got the go-ahead for to do just that, and to have Earth orbit flight test of Orion as well.
Lockheed-Martin, btw, has indicated that they can fly an Orion Asteroid Mission in 2019. If that's the case, then lunar exploration gets speeded up.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Good grief no! The USAF only seems "more ordered" because as a non-civilian agency they are better at hiding their screw-ups. The USAF is much less efficient, hard as that may be to believe, than NASA at managing budgets. And it's been USAF involvement (meddling) with the shuttle program that has been a major contributor to the STS being the mess that it's been, right from the beginning. The original NASA designs were much more practical and elegant, including SSTO. It was the USAF that forced NASA into so many spec changes that we ended up with the costly, klunky kluge that's been flying since '81.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight you didn't plan your mission properly! Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
This underscores the problem that military men are military men. Putting the USAF in charge of the US space program would be like putting the US Navy in charge of merchant shipping. Without making any claims about the degree to which space has been militarized already, we should pursue a philosophy of minimizing and retarding the militarization of space instead of giving militarization a de facto embrace by bringing the USAF into it any more than they already are. Sooner or later, there will be an armed presence in space far more significant than anything we can point to today. At one end of the spectrum is a set of competing forces busting budgets in Cold War fashion to ensure that each nation’s commercial interests in space are “protected” against interference by the forces of competing nations. At the other end of the spectrum is a small constabulary-type force in operation to enforce agreed-upon rules for all commercial interests regardless of national origin. We should pursue policies to get as far towards the latter end of the spectrum as possible. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
An armed presence in space is inevitable. Sad to say, but it's more likely going to be on the national level instead of the UN's. And no country is going to want the UN to have any kind of taxation authority, ever. Want an example of that? Back in the early '90s, the UN was thinking about some kind of tax on international airline tickets to fund its operations. Not a single country supported it, and the idea died a quick death. Same thing will apply here.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Space already has been militarized, though I can't comment on the degree to which it has been weaponized. I'm not debating whether there will be an armed presence in space, Matt. You know I'm no peacenik or flower child. But degree matters.
Quote:
Goodness knows these sorts of extreme statements are fun to write. However, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. To say that getting international cooperation on such a matter will be a gargantuan task would be reasonable. National soverignty is, after all, the reason Americans tend to give for hating the UN. To say it can never happen is an example of cocksuredness which is rather unlike you, Matt. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think European nations might be willing to consider it, for instance. After all they've already subsumed some of their national sovereignty by joining the EU. I tend to be wary of making such sweeping statements (not saying I don't occasionally make them though ).
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
I'm not saying that there won't be UN involvement in space, but any new treaty-especially one that sets up some kind of taxation on lunar (or asteroid) resources to fund UN operations, is something that doesn't seem realistic. Taxation is a power that governments reserve for themselves: hence the successful fight against the airline ticket tax.
You're more likely to have a "scramble for space" along the lines of the Scramble for Africa back in the 19th Century. The allure of revenues from space resources is something that national governments will be tempted to get their hands on, for very obvious reasons. And those governments will do whatever it takes to protect their citizens and companies from the depredations of others. The UN could serve as a forum for such disputes (and there already is a UN Outer Space Treaty, signed back in '67), where these can be (hopefully) resolved amicably. But if history is any guide, there will be times when diplomacy fails, and the sword is unsheathed. War in space will happen-it's only a matter of time, and whether it'll be rival companies, rival countries, or a space Navy vs. pirates, it's going to happen.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#40
|
||||
|
||||
Honestly, I can't see anything being brought back in commercial quantities from space - the costs involved are just too great.
The real profits will be along the lines of advances in technology, not raw materials.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Nanomachines and bucky balls, that's where it's at. If we could build 'beanstalk' space elevators we could move bulk commodities to and from space at very low costs. The theory is sound but the technology is still in its infancy. You capture yourself a carbonacious asteroid, place it into the right orbit around the Earth and use nanomachines to spin super-strong bucky string cable and lower it down to the surface, using the asteroid's own mass as building material.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
All too true. Given that the burden of free will still rests with us, I’ll choose to have the fighting be between a space constabulary and outlaws over an international space war or intercorporate space war any day. Space weapons will be astronomically expensive for everyone. The fewer there are, the less money wasted. Corporations shouldn’t want to spend money on space weapons unless they manufacture them for others. Nations shouldn’t want to spend money on them because lawyers are cheaper than astronauts (although not by much), and in any event the companies whose interests said nations will be fighting to protect will be fighting to avoid paying taxes to fund the weapons. Right now… at the beginning… before large-scale investments have been made… before a de facto arrangement supersedes all our better ideas… is the time to create a legal framework that benefits everybody by encouraging development and peaceful competition for the resources and the markets. Right now, there are no sovereignty issues for the Moon. Therefore, no government has any business getting its panties in a bunch over taxation of resources extracted from sources not owned or controlled by that government. Now if the US or Botswana want to tax light helium or platinum entering their sovereign territory, that’s up to the US or Botswana. However, as it stands the US and Botswana have no legal claim on resources in or under the lunar regolith. Those resources belong to humanity, and it is to humanity that remittances must be made. Of course, the aforegoing is nothing more than idealist claptrap once a few billion private dollars get involved. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, now is the time to sort out a legal framework that will benefit everybody and obviate the need for an expensive militarization of space and the kind ruinous competition that make reading about the Wild West and the colonization of Africa so diverting. Last edited by Webstral; 07-06-2011 at 01:37 AM. Reason: Poor grammar |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I agree, though, that the advances in technology will be quite profitable. Look at what the world got out of Apollo. That’s a good example of preventing a mad race for resources. I’m glad you re-introduced it to the dialogue. Our challenge is to move beyond creating a scientific preserve and towards development of the resources. |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
I forgot who it was, but an SF author once said that when mankind is able to reach the stars and joins the interstellar community, our biggest export to other planets will be mercenaries -- so great is the human capacity and willingness to fight.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
On a different but related track, a recent PCWorld report says that Internet speeds to Earth are only about the same as dial-up speeds here on Earth. That's something they're working on to speed up; It will be essential before you can have a large civilian presence in Earth orbit. The problem is that the ISS is moving, the Earth is moving, and the ISS constantly has to change tracking stations while it orbits. Those tracking stations weren't designed for Internet traffic.
Beyond Earth orbit, forget it. The time lag will be to great, even from high Earth orbit to the ground, to play games like Warcraft or something like that. And of course, civilians will be upset about that... A Canadian astronaut has already tried to play Warcraft from the ISS on his day off and found out the slow internet connection stopped him from effectively doing that.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli |
#48
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
The Rockwell X-30 was cancelled in 1993 because NASA couldn't design it to cary a crew and a small payload with the US DOD wanted, which I think was quite a reasonable request. The Lockheed-Martin X-33 was cancelled in 2001 after a long series of technical difficulties and after NASA had invested $922 million and Lockheed Martin another $357 million, which in turn led to the cancellation of Venture Star, as X-33 was a subscale technological demonstrater for the Venture Star project. Then there is Blackstar which nobody seems to know much about other than claiming it doesn't exist, and its not a NASA project. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
One thing about this topic is that everyone has their opinions and can, even if we're on the same page on others, can "agree to disagree." This is a subject that evokes passion and anger-especially if your proposed exploration strategy didn't make the cut, but at least here it's amicable. Over on spacepolitics.com, if you're not a commercial space zealot, a Space X fanboy, or an ObamaSpace supporter (preferably all three), you're a heretic or worse. I'm one of those gutsy enough to call them on this: pointing out that a lot of what they want to do has no political support in Congress, and the venom my way is fast and furious. Some of 'em think that anyone who's anti-commercial space, or just skeptical until these commercial entities prove themselves, is a shill for NASA or those backing the Orion crew vehicle and heavy-lift. They also don't realize that there is a big difference between what they want to do and what Congress will allow them to do-especially with NASA funds-and forget that NASA (or any government agency for that matter) can't spend a dime on anything unless Congress approves the funding. Not to mention that Congress is not a rubber stamp. For these people, it's a religion, and nothing is going to sway them from it.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#55
|
||||
|
||||
The thing that makes me laugh is that while the spacepolitics.com fanatics are arguing, the Asian nations and others are pushing ahead with their own space programmes. The Chinese aren't the only ones getting rockets ready for space exploitation and do the fanatics think that Israel, India or even Indonesia will stop their own space programmes to let the USA or Russia dominate the heavens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...space_programs And as for commercial exploitation, there's definitely the belief that there is some very big money to be made, considering the notions put forward in the following article, it's simply a matter for them of creating the technology to exploit the universe. http://www.physorg.com/news183044315.html Quote:
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
I often say that the next man on the moon will be Chinese.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
The ChiComs have only flown two HSF missions so far, and though some say they're getting ready for a Salyut clone of a space station, they're on a very slow path at present. Want to move up lunar return with people? Confirmation of a Chinese lunar landing program, and that will get Congress on NASA's rear end, because there are members on both sides of the aisle who feel that "NASA was first there, and NASA should be first back."
The people on Spacepolitics.com are fanatical, no doubt about that. A lot of them have the "my way or the highway" mentality.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Firefly fan?
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure modules, Rook's Gambit and The Poisoned Chalice, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, the gear-book, Baltic Boats, and the co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...liate_id=61048 https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/...-waters-module |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
No hard evidence so far of a ChiCom lunar program at present (No heavy-lift vehicle, no lunar lander or surface systems under development, etc.). However, the Chinese have said that they do want to attempt a lunar landing sometime in the 2020s. Want to kick-start NASA into returning to the moon sooner than they currently plan (late 2020s, minimum)? Confirmation of a ChiCom lunar mission in the planning stage. Watch Congress go ape, and direct NASA to "beat the Chinese".
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with kindness and respect, but always have a plan to kill them. Old USMC Adage |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
You mean the first man on the moon?
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests) | |
|
|