Posted on 07/25/2002 10:13:58 AM PDT by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
Fellow Freepers: I was recently asked to address a technology group at a State University.
This was my speech.
My speech is about this country, why we need a clear cut goal and what that goal should be.
As a country we seem to be like the wife of an abusive husband waiting for her next beating.
On top of it we have lost our technological edge. It was recently widely reported that the United States lost the title of the fastest computer to Japan.
Financially times are uncertain as well, everyone seems to be scared of losing their jobs. People realize that job security doesnt exist today as it did, when 30 years of working for a company brought one a gold watch and a healthy retirement check.
Just as at home our rest seems less restful, our enemies seem less clearly defined than they did in the days of the cold war.
What is it that we are lacking?
Well as you should have guessed from my opening, what we lack is a clear cut goal, which harnesses our creative intelligence as a nation.
What should our national goal be?
Well, I dont think that survival is a worthy goal, as it seems to be what our current goal is and it is not helping us.
And staying the worlds top super power, that involves struggling to stay king of the hill and thus constant turmoil.
In looking for this national goal I am going to suggest a goal that in our past that propelled us forwards.
In the modified words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out of landing a man on Mars and returning him to Earth safely.
Before you dismiss this goal, let me explain how this goal would address of the problems I mentioned earlier.
First of all, it is apparent that a strong American space program is the same thing as a strong America.
The military spin offs of space exploration are almost limitless.
Dont forget that military technology proliferates.
If we rest on our laurels, our enemies will develop nuclear technology and missile delivery systems.
And the lesson of 9-11 is that our enemies are not resting on their laurels.
The driving force of the American economy is technological innovation. Many economists accurately said that the economy of the nineties was flat but the tech sector was so strong that it pulled the rest of the economy with it.
How did America become the worlds leading technical innovator?
I would argue that much of the impetus came as long term spin off from the Apollo space programs and Reagans Star Wars initiative.
In addition to technology, many breakthroughs in the fields of engineering, medicine, plastics, aviation, and electronics came from these programs.
The problem currently is that corporations owe it to their shareholders to return profits in the current quarter. This stifles long-term research and investment.
And since winning an election has become so expensive, politicians are more concerned about filling their campaign coffers than the long-term well being of this country.
The investment in high tech research and manufacturing necessary to put a man on Mars would be a tremendous boast to the economy and have spin off effects for decades.
It would also help the increasing unemployment. Not only would it have these advantages, but this new found space agility would benefit the entire world in other ways. How many of you remember the asteroids hitting Jupiter a couple of years ago.
And often times in the news it is noted that an asteroid narrowly missed us. As it currently is, we have absolutely no defense against this.
To develop the capacity to defend against this eventuality would also help us with missile defense. And both of these programs would benefit from a manned mission to Mars.
And although many would decry this as a budget boondoggle, I would say that it would force the government to redefine its priorities and make it more efficient. It would have to be more efficient and channel the nations resources more carefully.
In conclusion, fellow Freepers, I ask you to remember the exhilaration of watching Neil Armstrong taking one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.
And join me in supporting the growing movement onward and upward into space.
1. A fully functional self sustainable Lunar colony by July 20, 2019.
2. By 2030 the first LaGrange habitat/factory at the LaGrange delivers it's first solar powered generating station to earth for power delivery.
4. 2040 Permanent colony on Mars.
4. By 2050 all Earth's power is beamed to earth and all heavy industry has been moved off planet. In this way the Earth can become a park-like living room for humanity and all God's children, including the animals that God provided for our physical and emotional well being.
The notion of reusable launch vehicles has huge promise but little backing within NASA. The X-33 program was ambitious and underfunded. It failed in the area of composite tanks but it might have failed elsewhere even with more money. The X-34 solved the composite tank problem, smaller scale, but it was single string in many areas and relied on a Government Furnished Engine(GFE) that was poorly executed. NASA's failure on two Mars probes made them suddenly risk adverse and unwilling to take a chance on the relatively low cost X-34 approach and they cancelled X-34 beacuse the cost of adding redundancy to the avionics systems and likelihood of a further delays in the propulsion system would likely be cost prohibitive.
You nailed the real reason for going to the moon and beyond by citing the explorative nature of the USA. It makes a lot of sense to go to the moon and then beyond. The moon is actually a better space station than the ISS. It gives you a chance to practice things while only three days from the earth as opposed to going to Mars which is at least six months from home. Mars exploration in reality only makes sense when you consider nuclear propulsion, which the greenies are dead against. In fact with two week nights on the moon you need an SP-100 like nuclear generator to make it economically feasible to build a campsite leading to a more permanent lunar infrastructure.
I have long been an advocate of exploring our solar system for my own selfish reasons but we are a long away from having the resolve to do so. My read is that with the war on terrorism that we are farther away than ever.
Is it at all feasible to design an airframe that can handle orbital-type speeds through the upper atmosphere, while using a jet or other turbine-style propulsion system? The reason I ask is I'm just trying to think of ways we can get into space with a minimum of on-board rocket fuel (not that I'm the only one, of course). I figure a maser link with an orbiting spacecraft might be able to provide, or help provide, the necessary energy. What'cha all think? (please, no tomatoes)
We have spent $100s of billions of dollars to come to the place that we can put seven people in space for short periods of time. When not spent $10 to $20 billion to faciliate thousands being able to enter space?
In the early days I was a strong supporter of NASA. I wouldn't give you $20 for the whole program these days.
HE might be right, however, while I love Texas, there is a lot of marginal land between San Angelo and El Paso and a long way to the north and south. Not a lot of moisture or shade. From what a read, there is not nearly as much water underground in that part of the country as we think. It might not be what we could call 'quality' living.
What are these proponents of unlimited immigration going to do when basic services for cities break down. By the time some people wake up to the dangers, it will be too late.
You should stand on the beach and order the tide to go out - you'll have the same effect on immigration.
There are resources in space and no government on earth can make a credible claim. This is the fuel to freedom. I agree the government should stay out of my way if I want to colonize mars or whatever - it's not doing so presently. I won't argue mars colonization should be a government project. It won't get done anytime soon.
As for elbow room - dude, there are whole planets out there with no one (human) using them yet. If you want to live cheek to jowl with your neighbors in a tiny box, go ahead. Personally, I'm a tool-using primate, not a veal calf. I plan to make use of natural resources (especially free fusion energy from the sun and big rocks just floating around) coupled with primate ingenuity to build my own little worlds.
This is NASA we're talking about here. Their goals have never been to open up space for the average person. Even if they have this new whiz-bang SSTO toy they can be expected to:
1. Make it more inefficient and expensive than anyone could imagine. (They were predicting $100/lb. to LEO for the shuttle in the 70's.)
2. Only allow super-elites to ride their toy. No civilians except politically correct feel-good choices from NASA for a PR stunt. (McCauliffe,Glenn redux)
This just isn't a game that NASA wants to play. It's up to private non-government orginizations to get us to the point of Arthur C. Clarke's vision in 2001 A Space Odyssey.
As for NASA, as soon as that space plane is a reality, I'd close it down. I'd then wait three years. At the end of three years I'd develop some form of national service like the Navy to oversee it.
Why do I suggest that? All we need is for some NGO like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace to get their meat-hooks into it. I'm open to any suggestions, but I'll be damned if I'll agree to another NGO taking over. I may dislike government, but at least they answer to someone. Those NGOs don't answer to anyone including God.
Possible? Yes. Feasible? Not yet proven. Scramjets are going through the experimental phase with projects like Hyper X. NASP was supposed to demonstrate this capability but bit off more than it could chew.
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.