Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The race into space - Is the U.S. in it?
Washington Times ^ | May 29, 2003 | Robert S. Walker

Posted on 05/29/2003 3:07:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Edited on 07/12/2004 4:03:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

Are the Chinese serious about human space flight? Most definitely. And they are interested in doing more than simply going to low Earth orbit. They are headed for the moon.

For most of last year, the Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry looked at our nation's position relative to our global competition. Clearly, the Europeans are determined to challenge our preeminence in commercial aviation, and the challenge to our leadership in space is coming from the Pacific Rim.


(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: china; nasa; nationalsecurity; space; spaceexploration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last
To: Cincinatus' Wife
First, a nation with the technological capacity to do a sustained moon program would have achieved an ability to build, integrate and utilize spacecraft.

The "human" interest side of space exploraiton is undeniable. But early space pioneers like Werner Von Braun knew that the technology came first and the "monkey" came later.

NASA is the first government organization to successfully implement ISO 9000 quality standards. NASA broadcasts this fact and supporting documents on their quality website. The manpower needed to implement ISO standards is mind boggling for a government entity.

The fixation on bureacracy and bureaucratic procedure needed to successfully implement ISO 9000 quality control standards has pre-empted the NASA mission to put men into space and bring them home again - ALIVE!
( I like to use the term MEN since ts traditional usage is inclusive of women and is not exclusive to one gender)

NASA's primary mission is that of a social experiment - to show how a diversified crew of marginally qualified engineers can do "just as good" as did the older white boys who put American men on the moon.

My point is that NASA is not about space exploration, technology or pioneering efforts, it is about diversity, quality control and bureaucratic political correctness.

A private or military (army, navy, airforce, marines) sponsored/supported enterprise would be head-over-heels more successful than the current bureaucracy.

41 posted on 05/29/2003 7:18:06 AM PDT by Podkayne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
"Do much more? What do they DO? They maintain the Space Ferry and the Ferry Dock. Mostly they get rewarded for ethnicity, nationality, or contribution to the Clinton White House Corruption Coverup--with a ride, a la John Glenn."

Maintain equipment, build new equipment, take data, design and re-design experiments, run experiments, and fix any of a thousand unexpected problems, any one of which would kill a robotic probe dead in its tracks.

Add to that the "little tiny" problem with using robotic probes---TIME LAG--imposed by that un-impressive phsical law called "the speed of light". Robotic probes now (and for the foreseeable future) are not sufficiently autonomous to work completely without human intervention--and the further away from earth they are, the worse the problem gets.

As to "sending and ARMADA of probes"---a combined manned/robotic approach would actually be cheaper--to wit--with a permanent manned presence in LEO, you actually build the probes in and launch them from space.

And no, Virginia, I don't suffer from "a lack of inspiration". I think that's YOUR problem.

42 posted on 05/29/2003 7:18:29 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Beats paying taxes for food stamps. Or diversity training. Or abortions.

NASA's budget is less than one half of one percent of the US annual budget. Luddites like you just don't get it.

43 posted on 05/29/2003 7:23:37 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Plus de fromage, s'il vous plait...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
re: Maintain equipment, build new equipment, take data, design and re-design experiments, run experiments, and fix any of a thousand unexpected problems, any one of which would kill a robotic probe dead in its tracks.)))

The program is dead in its tracks, right now, because a group of human "probes" were killed.

The nice thing about robot probes is that they only cost money. Nobody's heart breaks if they fail and collapse. For what we spend providing rides, we could develop lots and lots of probes, most of which would fail. Then we'd need more and more probes. Every one would be better than the last. Probes don't need to breathe, and they don't have to come home.

And astronauts are not exactly perfect. I seem to recall a camera burnt to a crisp moments upon making a moon landing.

Think of the spinoffs, the technology that would be developed.

And, we'd actually get to see and hear Mars, for ourselves, not vicariously.

44 posted on 05/29/2003 7:23:50 AM PDT by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
I hope they get their act together soon or I won't live to see the first human footprint on Mars .
45 posted on 05/29/2003 7:25:59 AM PDT by Renegade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Podkayne
My point is that NASA is not about space exploration, technology or pioneering efforts, it is about diversity, quality control and bureaucratic political correctness.

And that must change.

A private or military (army, navy, airforce, marines) sponsored/supported enterprise would be head-over-heels more successful than the current bureaucracy.

Nothing like competition to spur things along.

46 posted on 05/29/2003 8:22:19 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Renegade
I hope they get their act together soon or I won't live to see the first human footprint on Mars .

Beyond that, if we as a superpower can't finance exploration (which always gives cutting edge technology), as a nation we will falter.

47 posted on 05/29/2003 8:27:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Beats paying taxes for food stamps. Or diversity training. Or abortions.

I do not support that largesse either.

NASA's budget is less than one half of one percent of the US annual budget. Luddites like you just don't get it.

A Luddite is a person who worked to destroy technological achievements of private enterprise in order to maintain the status quo of employment opportunities. Why do you think government bureaucrats are superior at determining what should be researched than private individuals, spending money they either earned, or were voluntarily entrusted with? You act is if because I'm against the state squandering money on space research, I'm against space research.

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

"We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." -Frederic Bastiat

48 posted on 05/29/2003 8:30:26 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Why do you think government bureaucrats are superior at determining what should be researched than private individuals, spending money they either earned, or were voluntarily entrusted with? You act is if because I'm against the state squandering money on space research, I'm against space research

Because for better or worse, they're all we've got right now. As a conservative, I would much rather see private enterprise take the lead. But it's just not happening. The private sector doesn't operate aircraft carriers either, but I'm happy my tax dollars build and operate them.

49 posted on 05/29/2003 8:45:00 AM PDT by buccaneer81 (Plus de fromage, s'il vous plait...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
The Chineese space rockets are different than all the others on Earth...

When launched they spin and whirl up to space while spraying a shower of sparks.
50 posted on 05/29/2003 8:46:17 AM PDT by Georgia_JimD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia_JimD
Chinese fireworks: The earliest known evidence for the invention of gunpowder was in the 9th century AD. Chinese alchemists warned that anyone mixing the elements sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter risked creating an explosion. The alchemists had invented the explosive compound but the formula of its ingrediants was not printed untill 1044. Ever since they created gunpowder the Chinese have been very good at fireworks. They were the first to use gunpowder but they used most of it for fireworks and just a small amount for weapons.

Once the effect of gunpowder was established, the Chinese used gunpowder to ward off evil spirits. It was only when it was taken back west in the 15th century that its military uses were recognized, and the musket and cannon were made.

51 posted on 05/29/2003 9:02:48 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: buccaneer81
Because for better or worse, they're all we've got right now. As a conservative, I would much rather see private enterprise take the lead. But it's just not happening.

You assert there is no private research of space?! Do you also not see that government expenditure in this area also crowds out private research by forcibly directing limited funds, and by consequence committing a portion of the limited pool of scientists, as the bureaucrats see fit? My question remains, why do you think the bureaucrats know better how to allocate resources than individuals spending their own money, or money voluntarily entrusted to them?

The private sector doesn't operate aircraft carriers either, but I'm happy my tax dollars build and operate them.

Red Herring. An aircraft carrier is purchased with tax dollars to provide for the defense of our nation, from which all benefit, and is, as an exercise of power, an expenditure of funds authorized by the Constitution.

52 posted on 05/29/2003 10:30:00 AM PDT by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Space will have to wait a while. They're just too busy researching the answer to the burning question of whether the mean global temperature over the next century is going to rise 1.25 degrees or 1.5 degrees.
53 posted on 05/29/2003 10:44:58 AM PDT by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
Searching for life just doesn't cut it.

As a goal, it is bogus or dufus. 'Our dufus space program,' has a certain ring. Let the Euros search for life, we have real things to do.

54 posted on 05/29/2003 10:48:07 AM PDT by RightWhale (gazing at shadows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife; DPB101; Light Speed; Physicist; Travis McGee
Ping.
55 posted on 05/29/2003 10:56:19 AM PDT by Paul Ross (From the State Looking Forward to Global Warming! Let's Drown France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
It's also reality. Remember the human repair of Hubble? People couldn't get enough of it. People need to go, people always need to go. Robots can be useful but they won't replace human ingenuity and imagination.

I was born in 1966 but I do remember the missions to the Moon and I know they peaked my interest in science, space, radio electronics, and computers. I also like to collect documentaries on space travel including the ones Mike Wallace made for CBS after the launch of Sputnik. I remember he said in the 1958 documentary basically that we need to get men into space, a probe "made up of electronic tubes" cannot do what a man can.

We need to be up there. Yes, that means more government spending just to jumpstart it and to keep pace for national security reasons as well as expand our frontiers. Still if a private concern wants to go into space, that's fine with me too. I remember back in the 1980's, I read in one computer magazine that to get America going again is a "Japanese Sputnik." Well now, we are faced with a Red Chinese Sputnik very soon, and as Lyndon Johnson said in 1957, "I don't want to sleep under a Communist Moon."

My uncle worked for NASA since the Mercury/Gemini days andhe retired last year although he thinks he might go back part-time since my aunt died and he needs something to do. Anyways, he is upset that after the Moon, we retracted back to Earth orbit.
56 posted on 05/29/2003 11:15:55 AM PDT by Nowhere Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Read; Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress". We need to stay out higher up for security and future resources. It's raining soup out there!
57 posted on 05/29/2003 12:01:57 PM PDT by metacognative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jpl; RightWhale; Nowhere Man
Bumps!


58 posted on 05/29/2003 12:09:18 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
It's also reality. Remember the human repair of Hubble? People couldn't get enough of it.

I do. They were exciting adventures. They were also miserable expenditures: it would have been better, faster and cheaper simply to build a whole new telescope every time, and to launch it into orbit via unmanned rocket.

The repairs did capture the public imagination, but I'm not sure they did so more than the arresting images from Hubble itself. And then there are the images and data from the planetary probes, which were obtained for a tiny fraction of what the manned space program costs, and whose scientific value far outweighs anything that has ever come out of the manned space program.

Entertainment and inspiration are valid aims for the space program, but even on that score the unmanned program delivers far more for far less expense.

59 posted on 05/29/2003 1:20:05 PM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog; Paul Ross
Boeing currently builds Zenon Ion thrusters,which is Plasma technology on Satillites.

As you mentioned..other gases are R and D for Plasma drive.

Boeing is working on a deep space Ion drive engine...I am not sure what Gas they are commiting to for it.

I used to operate a Cryogenic Nitrogen Plasma table..for big steel underwater cut..oilfield.

Ion stream requires special containment devices and parameters must stay constant in plumbing..deterioration leads to violent Kaboom.

In the little here and there that I have been able to glean from research..the deep space engine design is not really the hold up to manned flight..but shielding.

From crew compartment..to sheilding from various engine applications..this is the next threshold to overcome.

Magnetic field sheilding.....they will get it mastered eventually : )

60 posted on 05/29/2003 1:41:48 PM PDT by Light Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-125 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson