Posted on 06/15/2004 2:59:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
misunderestimation ping
Rather quiet, isn't it?
I have talked to them, and they like the way things are. The contractors will have to innovate, and they won't do that without a gun to their heads.
The bureaucrats will actually have to commit to a goal where their is a discernible difference between failure and success and they won't do that without a gun to their heads. Heck, pre-Columbia all they had to do to be considered successful was avoid disaster and they couldn't even do that.
That stuff sounds good, but
would anyone really say
NASA -- defined by
bureaucracies and
old boy networks, along with
weird academic
hierarchies -- stands
as a manifestation
of the human soul?
Thanks for the ping!
NASA's mantra under Clinton's appointee was "too male, too pale, and too stale."
A lot of the Apollo-era engineers, who had since entered senior management, were driven out during those years.
"It's been a long road, gettin' from there to here..."
America deserves better and this vision for space exploration is the better. The entire report comes out tomorrow.
But we're finally here.
Cold-War competition can no longer serve as a catalyst for exploration.
If China shows any sign of really going to the moon, that catalyst will be back.
What's missing inside NASA (and lots of other organizations) is that undefineable combination of leadership and competence that characterized Apollo.
But the bigger issue has nothing to do with NASA: no amount of leadership or enthusiasm will make up for the inability for the general population to dream. Nor can it make up for the levels of unchecked cynicism so common to those in positions of influence (and they have a vested interest in keeping people from dreaming).
Kennedy said we should go into space because it's easy, but because it's hard. But he was wrong -- we should go into space because it's intrinsically worth doing. The problem is: how do you make that case? How do you vault past the cynics to get to the dreamers, and how do you avoid disappointing them through failure?
I usually come on to these threads challenging the "privatize space" folks to present a business case for their cause. I personally think "privitization" is bound to fail except in cases where government R&D has already been done, and feasibility has been demonstrated. That's why a revitalized NASA is necessary. Space does offer tremendous potential, but it likewise requires the expenditure of tremendous resources -- amounts only a government can amass -- to make it work.
I hope W's team comes out with a realistic timeline, and I hope that they start it rolling during his next administration.
The issue is private property.
The gov't has already asserted sovereignty of outer space, so they could set up a mechanism for registering private property claims with no further action besides telling the clerk at the BLM which form to use.
"If China shows any sign of really going to the moon, that catalyst will be back."
Thats it! The chicom militarization of space will light a fire under NASA's butt.
By that I mean that the Federal space program is too timid and shortsighted to be effective. Enough is known about outer space, and it is obvious the Feds are not going to set up a space transportation infrastructure. So it is time, past time by 30 years, for the gov't to start recognizing private claims to celestial resources. They can update their mining law at the same time, it's always near the top of the workpile on the Hill anyway.
The business case could be NASA itself. There's billions of aerospace spending to be had, but conventional wisdom leads contractors to provide as few launches/programs/vehicles as possible to get those billions. The problem is that those billions are very, very static.
Growth just isn't in the picture. Hence the whole thing is one stinking, stagnant swamp begging to be drained.
This is my favorite part:
"president's people piqued pundits and policymakers a by pronouncing.."
....probably, perhaps..
You don't need to recognize asteroid mining as a valid business activity, someone else has already done that. But you need to recognize private property rights in outer space, and this has not been done.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Burt Rutan would probably disagree with you.
Please note that Scaled Composites, like the other X-Prize contestants, is doing it's own R&D. Precisely because they don't have the sums to throw around that governments do, they have to find a different way--smaller, faster cheaper.
And yes, I know the X-Prize is not an orbital shot. But I expect there will be an X2, and an X3. And at every stage, I imagine, there will be one or more Burt Rutans to take up the challenge.
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.