From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:27:51 MDT
On Monday, June 02, 2003 1:04 PM Spudboy100@aol.com wrote:
>> The Failure of NASA: And a Way Out
>> by Philip K. Chapman
>> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html
>
> 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.
I'm not so sure about that.
Also, as many have pointed out, with the advent of Chinese interest in
pursuing manned spaceflight and Indian in pursuing lunar mission, such
competition could return.
2) All these aerospace engineers are as good
> at economic estimates as I am-which is to
> say-negative.
Partly true. Overall, the aerospace industry is plagued by cost-plus
financing and massive subsidies. These help to make it economically
inefficient. My solution is to remove the subsidies and whatever
government contracts do remain should not adopt a cot-plus method of
funding.
> 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.
I disagree. I'm not against innovation or breakthroughs, but most of
the popular space projects -- a lunar base, Mars missions, space
recreation, space settlements, asteroid mining, etc. -- can be done or,
at least, started with current technology. E.g., space recreation --
tourism, etc. -- can be done with current technology. Granted, to do it
safely and routinely will require working out some kinks, but a bare
bones space recreation project like just doing the John Glenn ride or
even the Apollo 8 mission has already been done. Ditto for a lunar
base. Etc.
> 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.
Whoa! I'm a proponent of just getting rid of NASA (as well as spreading
salt over it to make sure it doesn't grow back:) and not replacing it
with anything than of ACCESS, but ACCESS would change "the basic facts
on the ground," especially the financial incentives. If what you said
were true, then the satelite launch market as it exists today should not
exist. The Challenger explosion made the government rethink its space
policy and eventually to mandate that NASA get out of the satelite
launch market. What we have today is the satelite business could, I
believe, carry over into other arenas of space activity. Getting NASA
out of the way will get the ball rolling.
Of course, this does not mean if NASA were shut down tomorrow, by
Christmas United and American Airlines would be in a price war over
lunar flights.:) It would take a few years, but the market would then
develop in a way that would be much different than having bureaucrats
hand out contracts for politically popular projects.
> 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.
Not necessarily. Those things would be nice, but, to use but one
example, space tourism would build a likely profitable infrastructure
from which other things could grow.
> 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.
Allow private competition in the space market and the innovations will
be made by those involved.
Also, your position is not that far from Chapman's. After all, he wants
ACCESS to fund "exploration and scientific research" as well as support
the "development of enabling technology."
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:32:24 MDT