[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::space

Title:Space Exploration
Notice:Shuttle launch schedules, see Note 6
Moderator:PRAGMA::GRIFFIN
Created:Mon Feb 17 1986
Last Modified:Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:974
Total number of notes:18843

437.0. "Why and How" by MAYDAY::ANDRADE () Mon Jul 04 1988 12:38

	I have come to the conclution that our lack of long term
commitement / view / planning in our space program is nothing but
one case representative of how our governament is lacking in 
these abilities.

	We can either try and work within the current famework,
or we can try and change the way our governament is formed.  Or
both.  For me the third choise is the best, we do both.

	Reasons that might make the current governament better
disposed towards a bigger space program:

1.	STAR WARS - stopping nuclear missiles from space. (done)

2.	A better alternative to nuclear missiles, rocks from space
	just as much distruction with no radioactivity.

3.	Governament in space, we send the president and all his
	advisors up. (sure thing to win a second term) except
	of course we wouldn't bring them back. ;-)

4.	Plus all the other stuff we have been giving them all along.



	Ways to give our myope governament a better long range view.

	The problem as I see it is that man is a petty selfish animal. 
politions more then most. And even if by some miracle we got a
president with 20/20 vision and he started something, chances are
the next one would stop it. After all the last one was a Replublican
or a Democrat. Or the one afterwards, what do you think are the
chances of getting 4 or 5 presidents in a row with 20/20 vision.
	This is without mentioning Congress at all, that's a problem
of an entirely different order.

	The thing to do is to set up something so that it would be
in somebody's self interest to have long range vision even at the
expense of short term goals, etc.  Just the same way the governament
is currently set up so its in the president's and congressmen's self
interest to have things running well in the short term even at the
expense of long term goals.

	What you say, well maybe a life term board composed of
ex-presidents. Or a long term board with people being voted into it.
Or yet again a board apointed by the current president just like the 
supreme court judges.

	Of course this would mean a constitutional change.

Gil 
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
437.1SNDCSL::SMITHTANSTAAIMon Jul 04 1988 18:2319
>    We can either try and work within the current famework, or we can try
>    and change the way our governament is formed.  Or both.
 
    How about something really radical, working outside the framework?
    Commercial and private space exploration/development isn't entirely
    impossible, and if you get away from the triply_redundant_gold_plated
    NASA way of doing things, the prices come down substantially....
    
    Flight qualified: The height of the paperwork exceeds the height
    of the vehicle.
    
    Man-rated: The height of the paperwork exceeds the expected altitude
    of the vehicle.
    
    It took NASA 90 days(!!) to fix the problems and go ahead after
    the Apollo 13(?) disaster, the Shuttle problems are closing in on
    3 years and one has to wonder if it will ever fly again...    
                                                           
    Willie
437.2An exortation to go slowVINO::DZIEDZICMon Jul 04 1988 21:5017
    I've heard quite a lot about how long it has taken to recover from
    the Challenger disaster versus Apollo, and while I agree with the
    basic sentiment (we're taking too damn long to recover), we should
    keep in mind that the ENTIRE shuttle system has been re-examined
    and re-worked (where necessary), whereas in the case of Apollo only
    the capsule required substantial work (the Saturn V wasn't changed,
    for example).  I'd easily believe the shuttle system is at least
    an order of magnitude more complex than the Apollo capsule; based
    on that, I guess NASA is doing pretty well.
    
    Also, NASA is under an incredible pressure to get this one "right".
    If Discovery ends in disaster, we can kiss the U.S. future of the
    U.S. space program goodbye.
    
    Now, at last, we're back on the road.  Let's take a little extra
    time, if necessary, and make it right!  (2 months to go!)
    
437.3Why - for our very survival as a race MTWAIN::KLAESKnow FutureTue Jul 05 1988 13:2138
    	In 1983 and 1985, SF author Michael McCollum wrote two excellent
    SF novels, LIFEPROBE and PROCYON'S PROMISE.  They dealt with an
    advanced alien civilization, referred to only as the Makers, who
    were desperately trying to search for a means of faster-than-light
    (FTL) space travel, so that their wonderful civilization would not
    end up using all the resources of their solar system and die out,
    as sublight starships just could not maintain an entire society
    in any reasonable amount of time.  FTL travel was the key to their
    survival and expansion into the Milky Way Galaxy (And eventually
    beyond it to the rest of the Universe).
    
    	The point of all this is that like the Makers, we too will one
    day encompass our entire solar system, and it will eventually not
    be enough for the human race to survive upon.  We MUST reach out
    to the other stars of the galaxy in order for our species to continue.
    If this sounds far-fetched or something for our distant descendants
    to worry about, then my point has been made:  We concentrate too
    much on today and do not plan for tomorrow.  If we stop our space
    programs, the human race is doomed to eventually die in either the
    confines of our solar system or Earth.  What we do now affects our
    future.  Of course their are other nations to carry on the exploration
    of space, but the U.S. space program is vital as well, and we must
    all work together to ensure our survival.
    
    	Our civilization has become too advanced for us to suddenly
    stop (barring a nuclear war), so that we just cannot (and will not)
    reverse ourselves to start living like primitive peoples, which
    WOULD allow humanity to survive on Earth indefinetely; but that
    time is long past.  Our own advancements have forced us to reach
    out into space to continue existing.  We cannot sustain ourselves
    with Earth's resources forever.  Like the Makers, we must expand
    into the Universe; though it may not necessarily be vital that we
    find some FTL capability immediately in the process - though it
    certainly would not hurt - we must explore and settle new solar
    systems.  
    
    	Larry
    
437.4Gotta get off this rock first!SNDCSL::SMITHTANSTAAITue Jul 05 1988 20:009
    Never mind getting out of the solar system, there's a critical "mass"
    of resources nessesary to get off this planet and start a
    self-sustaining space-faring civilization, and there's going to
    be a time in the not too distant future when it will be impossible
    to get the critical mass together.  Our great-grandchildren will
    probably be unable to get off the planet (the way things are going)
    without an infrastructure already in place.....
    
    Willie
437.5RE 437.4MTWAIN::KLAESKnow FutureTue Jul 05 1988 20:404
    	I believe that was part of the whole concept I was discussing.
    
    	Larry
    
437.6re .5SNDCSL::SMITHTANSTAAIWed Jul 06 1988 13:369
    Yup, you were!  However, try taking the concept "let's get out of
    the solar system while we can" to the congress....  All part of
    the same picture, I agree, I'm just trying for the first small steps.
    There's actually a plus side to the "critical mass" problem, once
    you get started, the explosion runs on it's own.
    
    You're right tho, we're essentially in agreement.
    
    Willie