International Space Agency

On Jun 17, 2:58*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
ISA_future wrote:

'Fred J. McCall[_3_ Wrote:
;1214195']ISA_future wrote:

I'm going to keep this short and sweet: does anyone realistically think
that an International Space Agency can be formed and maintained?

No. *Everyone's idea of 'fair share' usually means that someone else
pays. *Look at ESA and the games France plays within it.

There are always going to be nations which pay more towards it because
they are richer and can afford to.

And how is that 'fair' again? *Let's say you and I go to a bar. *We
each order a beer. *They charge you twice as much because you have
more money. *Does that actually make sense to you?



But just imagine a Unification
between the 'big' Space agencies. The things which could be accomplished
would be huge!

The US would accomplish more working alone.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Exactly, as without provoking, how else would we have had to attack
Japan and having to create 9/11.

You do realize that we(USA) and Russia created North Korea.

For a perpetual warlord like yourself, what's next?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus

Please read my whole text, I'm not trying to rant or flame...

"He's" not a person, he is the metaphore for the nature of getting to space.

Let's say the rich guy who wants the special beer is America.
NASA is not able to champion space all on its own anymore. We're in a crisis and can't affort to dump huge amounts of money into space exploration as we used to. At least that's the popular conception.

If we all pushed for and expected NASA to do great things like we used to, I think we could get to space, and we'd be better off because of it.
Unfortunately, we don't but that's fine. People like you outnumber people like me and I respect the nature of democracy (we all have to settle on what's most important as a whole)


That's why it has to be an International effort. Individual Nations have too much to deal with or simply not enough people willing to support and push for space exploration.

*This is the nature of the guy with the car*
_the car is the funding and will to go to space_
Maybe if everyone who wanted it put in their money their would collectively be enough money and will to get people back into space with force and purpose.

If you don't care, I don't expect you to pay. You don't have to angrily stomp on the idea because you don't like it, just don't pay.

Allow the dreamers to dream. We might surprise you.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:25:48 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Danyone realistically think that an
International Space Agency can be formed and maintained?



I'm going to go for the apparently unpopular vote of YES.

Although everyone's point about the difficulty of bureaucracy is fitting,
there is no alternative to bureaucracy.
Also comparing legislative and diplomatic affairs to the way scientific
and industrial matters work is a bad comparison.

Tell that to the European Space Agency. Or Airbus. Is A380 ever going
to see a dime of profit? Maybe in 2025, 30 years after the program
first got going. And then only if the wings don't fall off one in
flight, killing 550 passengers first. That's what happens when
national (or continental) pride gets in the way of a sound business
case. "America has a Jumbo Jet, so we must have one too! Nevermind
that the market is going more and more toward fuel efficient Big
Twins, we want a Double-Decker Quad! That will make the most of our
suppliers and politican constituents happiest!"

Funding things sucks, I know... boo hoo, get over it.

Uh, but you're asking the U.S. to pay the bills while you come along
for the ride. And you're telling us to just "get over it." Does the
phrase "...and the horse you rode in on" ring any bells?

How about this phrase... "Gas, grass or ass, nobody rides for free."

And don't whine about fairness either!

Who's whining? Fred and I are laughing at the mind-boggling naivte of
those proposing an International Space Agency. You want to be Buck
Rogers, pay your fair share. No coattail riding, please. Europe can
afford a space program the equal of NASA, but just doesn't want to.
They still want all the same glory and benefits, though. Pay up or get
over it.

It's not about paying more because you're richer.
It's about paying more because you want it enough to do so.

It seems to me it is about US paying more because YOU want it enough
to do so. We neither want it nor need it. You'll have to seriously
sweeten the deal to get the U.S. to play along. Beginning your
proposal with "you're richer, so you'll be paying a lot more"
obviously isn't going to win any converts in the U.S.

You've already got an international space agency in Europe. How about
you get that one working efficiently first, instead of running to the
U.S. or Russia every time it hits a budgetary stumbling block and need
someone else to pick up the rest of the bill? Do that, and then we'll
talk about ISA.

Brian