|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Jim Oberg wrote:
Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005 courtesy K. Cowing, http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1059 Eighteen months ago, President Bush committed this nation to a new direction in space, and set forth a fresh, clear mission for NASA. The President's directive gave all of us who are privileged to work in this business a challenge bold enough to last a lifetime. Indeed, it is a challenge big enough to last several lifetimes. The Exploration Vision commits our nation to the exploration of the Solar System, beginning with a return of humans to the Moon by the end of the next decade, and from there to subsequent voyages to Mars. I'm here today to discuss something of how we plan to reach these goals. But let me start by discussing our progress in returning the Space Shuttle to flight. etc For a down-to-Earth-rocket-scientist-self-admitted-Spock, Dr. Griffin sure does talk much about feelings. Humanity's destiny, and the ancient Chinese and Portuguese. Oh, my. The SDHLV mention was cleverly inserted in passing like. Surely, we need it now to fullfil the humanity's destiny. Brought a tear to my eye, it did. The cash for this heroic effort will surely be forthcoming... On -- to Mars! (methinks the new NASA admin has read Zubrin a bit too much) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul F. Dietz" wrote: Joe Strout wrote: There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth. I disagree. To date, stumbling around in space has produced very little in the way of developing space. Very little indeed, but even less is produced by stumbling around on the ground. To disagree with my statement (in a supportable way), you have to argue that work on the ground do *more* for developing space than work in space. You have to view both sides of the comparison to evaluate how true it is. Best, - Joe ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
When? Not in 200 years (so says my crystal ball) It'll be hard to say exactly when "self sufficiency" is achieved. Certainly within 200 years I would expect that any reasonable definition of it would be satisfied, but then we'll always have people like Derek who adopt unreasonable definitions to support their views (such as claiming that SS1 didn't actually reach space, for example). And we'll always have fanboys who prefer to cast aspersions rather than have to actually think - thinking is way harder than simply repeating wishful dreams. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
Unless you're talking about some limited timeframe, this is complete nonsense. Humanity *will* live with self-sufficiency beyond Earth someday; the only question is when and who that will be. Now *that* is romantic. Nothing wrong with that, but it still is. You may have a hard time selling projects based on romanticism, unless that romanticism is shared with a majority. It's not romanticism; it's population dynamics. Any population of reproducing organisms will expand to fill all available niches. As human technology progresses, space becomes an available niche. Ergo, we will expand into it. Except that there are many locations on Earth that we currently have the technology to settle - and by and large we mostly haven't. What we *do* find is that we have tended to settle in places of economic or military importance. Ergo - expansion into space will be based on commercial or military need, not population dynamics. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
Unless you're talking about some limited timeframe, this is complete nonsense. Humanity *will* live with self-sufficiency beyond Earth someday; the only question is when and who that will be. Now *that* is romantic. Nothing wrong with that, but it still is. You may have a hard time selling projects based on romanticism, unless that romanticism is shared with a majority. It's not romanticism; it's population dynamics. Any population of reproducing organisms will expand to fill all available niches. As human technology progresses, space becomes an available niche. Ergo, we will expand into it. Except that there are many locations on Earth that we currently have the technology to settle - and by and large we mostly haven't. What we *do* find is that we have tended to settle in places of economic or military importance. (Even more, we tend to hang onto those places long after they pass out of importance. Humans tend to be creatures of habit, familiarity, and routine.) Ergo - expansion into space will be based on commercial or military need, not population dynamics. People who argue against this point, I think need to go back and study some basic principles of biology. People who argue for this point need to study the fields that are actually applicable - history, and economics. Biology is utterly irrelevant. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Strout wrote:
In article , "Paul F. Dietz" wrote: Joe Strout wrote: There's good reason to think that space stumbling will be more productive at developing space (*) than stumbling around on the Earth. I disagree. To date, stumbling around in space has produced very little in the way of developing space. Very little indeed, but even less is produced by stumbling around on the ground. To disagree with my statement (in a supportable way), you have to argue that work on the ground do *more* for developing space than work in space. To date, that's arguably true. You have to view both sides of the comparison to evaluate how true it is. ROTFLMAO. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
(Derek Lyons) wrote: Except that there are many locations on Earth that we currently have the technology to settle - and by and large we mostly haven't. But we will, in time. (Small sub-niches may be protected against large-scale habitation, but such areas are still under direct control, and this doesn't apply to niches much larger than the Earth itself.) What we *do* find is that we have tended to settle in places of economic or military importance. (Even more, we tend to hang onto those places long after they pass out of importance. Humans tend to be creatures of habit, familiarity, and routine.) Certainly we settle those places first, just as tropical climates were settled before temperate (or colder) climates. But eventually we settle the other places too. Ergo - expansion into space will be based on commercial or military need, not population dynamics. I suppose in a sense we're both right; commercial or military need would cause space to be settled sooner. But eventually, in the absence of those, population dynamics would cause it to happen anyway. Humans reproduce and vary; this variation causes some individuals to arise with the desire (however logical or illogical this may be) to move off world. Technology will eventually make it possible for at least some of those (the wealthier of them, perhaps) to do so. So they will, and they'll continue to reproduce and vary, and selection pressure will favor those who multiply and spread (successfully). Centuries later, you'll have trillions of such folks spread throughout the solar system (and eventually, elsewhere), greatly outnumbering the stay-at-homes on Earth. People who argue for this point need to study the fields that are actually applicable - history, and economics. Biology is utterly irrelevant. Utter nonsense. ,------------------------------------------------------------------. | Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: | | http://www.macwebdir.com | `------------------------------------------------------------------' |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Indeed, we will issue this fall a request for proposal for such
capabilities, with the development to be done on a commercial basis, much like that in the commercial communications satellite market. His schedule is slipping. In June or so Griffin gave a more detailed speech on this plan, saying he hoped to have more in 60 or 90 days (I forget which). Granted, he didn't give it as a firm date or anything, but still, it is worth noting. If someone has handy the URL to that speech, or knows where to find it, I'd find it interesting to re-read it. I'm not really sure where to look.... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005 | Jim Oberg | Policy | 63 | September 18th 05 10:53 PM |
Griffin Remarks for AIAA Space 2005 Conference, 31 August 2005 | Jim Oberg | Space Shuttle | 62 | September 18th 05 10:53 PM |
A positive leap second will be introduced in UTC on 31 December 2005 | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 6 | July 11th 05 05:23 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |
Space Calendar - March 25, 2005 | [email protected] | History | 0 | March 25th 05 03:46 PM |