In article ,
(Tom Merkle) wrote:

Jeffrey Bell wrote a great opinion piece for SpaceDaily that takes on
one thread often bandied about here--the historical exploration
analogy:

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzx.html

Although I think we should be spending more than we currently are on
space, I agree that NASA will no more lead us to space exploration
than Cheng Ho did China to world colonization.
But Jeffrey Bell draws some questionable conclusions about what caused
Nordic and Chinese exploration to sputter. I think most would argue
that Nordic exploration might well have continued to colonize America
if the Little Ice Age hadn't arrived to kill it off at its most
vulnerable stage.
And although Chinese exploration was not accompanied by parallel
merchant activity, it is tough to tell if this followed from the
nature of the exploration or if this activity simply wasn't recorded
because it was explicitly ignored and discouraged by subsequent
government policy. I'll elaborate on these issues later...

IMHO that is not the only thing which is questionable.

"If we emulated the Vikings and the Confucian scholars
by closing down our current useless manned space program,
we might have the money to fund the equivalent of Prince
Henry's Navigation Institute and develop this technology
now instead of waiting 500 years."

"But no Space Cadet dares to advocate this. They fear that
instead of a second Space Age with advanced technology,
we would get what the 16th-century Chinese got: no manned
space program at all. They insist that we need to continue
spending the existing budget on Cheng Ho's pointless and
expensive voyages, and find new money to fund Columbus
and Da Gama."

Instead of offering evidence for why he believes the fears of the "Space
Cadets" are wrong all he can offer is ridicule.

If anything the evidence he does present would suggest the fears of the
"Space Cadets" were not without foundation.

"Unfortunately, there seems little possibility of significant
new money, at least from the US government. The Congress
recently sent letters to President Bush asking for a modest
increase in the NASA budget. These letters were signed by
only 18% of the House and 23% of the Senate! This level of
support is not enough to start a major new spending program."

If high levels of congressional support are not there now for NASA why
should they be there for a modern-day "equivalent of Prince Henry's
Navigation Institute", especially in the longer term? And it is long
term support which is needed if a long term exploration program is to
receive enough funding to be viable. Without it any modern-day
Navigation Institute, and its programs, will simply meet much the same
fate as NASA: chronically under-funded. Which in turn will mean reduced
staff and horizons, and shrunken programs. Which in its own turn will
doubtless lead to increasing ridicule from the Jeffrey Bells of this
world, who will find themselves calling for the abolition of the
Navigation Institute and the institution of a brand-new body to lead the
way to the promised land.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/