![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/59/1
Jeff Foust writes a good review on the recent buzz over the new vision for the possible new space policy directions. I found one aspect severely lacking in the article, though. It looks like economic and ecologic reasons are totally neglected like possible triggers or drivers for "the space vision". Quote: "What this review makes clear is that there is widespread interest in developing some kind of vision for NASA in the form of a goal or goals for human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit. Beyond that general interest, however, there is little consensus regarding not only what that vision should be-Moon, Mars, asteroids, or elsewhere-but how that vision should be developed among the executive and legislative branches and the general public. That dissonance is a recipe for yet another space policy failure." As you see, the possible "visions" on the table are only what one would call destinations. I'd see no purpose on visiting the moon, if it werent for turning it into economic benefit for humankind later on. I'd think selling a destination, like it was done with Apollo, would be a tough trick to pull off the second time around. But selling a better future for people or their children, either through potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) , prospects of getting a chance to visit the space for themselves ( space tourism ), utilizing other vast resources from space apart from energy to make for better living on earth. That could actually sell, if a coherent plan is put forth, with measurable progress milestones. Of course, one of the methods to implement a coherent plan is through a destination like moon, but the reasons for going there should be clearly stated, and actually serve some useful purpose. So its still a question of finding a appealing purpose of being in space, which, then, can be tied to a destination to drive the developments better. I havent heard of any serious speculations on what that new underlying purpose might be. Until now, its been a generic "to explore and advance humankind, expand frontiers". A tough sell which is hard to get behind. -kert |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |