From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:04:09 MDT
<<Well, someone is bold enough to propose some really
radical solutions that just might work. See:
The Failure of NASA: And a Way Out
by Philip K. Chapman
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html
Robert>>
He's bold enough to propose his solutions, but after reading the 3 pages of
the author's article, I get the feeling that they are less workable than he
suggests.
1) I believe the end of the Apollo project was due only to the lack of
national compettiton from the USSR. Once the space race was won, public interest all
but vanished.
2) All these aerospace engineers are as good at economic estimates as I
am-which is to say-negative.
3) We need some primary breakthroughs, either in new inventions, or
innovations
the improvement of capability of already known technologies. Private
industry, unless its got plenty of tax dollars headed its way, will not see the need
to participate in space habitation.
4) Because of the above listed factors, I suspect that his ACCESS replacement
of NASA won't work, because the basic facts on the ground have not changed.
Only technical development to make travel to space for industry, or the
discovery of miracle materials-only available from the asteroids, Moon, or Mars;
which will compel the private sector to invest, and invest mightily.
So what is my answer? Breakthroughs, in engineering, materials science,
chemical engineering, biological apps. Fund these, and commerical space travel and
habitation will follow. Let the be underfunded, and we as a species will wait
the decades it will take to achieve these advances, that comes from scientific
pursuits, in the typical hap-hazzard way.
Of course, if Chapman is correct, I will deny that I have ever spoke against
him. This post will self-destruct in 3 seconds. Much quicker if it is already
in your kill-file. Good Luck, Jim.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 11:17:25 MDT