NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System'

The Washington Post has an interview with NASA Head Mike Griffin in
which he discusses his views on space colonization:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301691.html

A few quotes:

"But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about
extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar
system as we go forward in time. . . . In the long run a single-planet
species will not survive. We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species
have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30
million years. ... We don't know of any other species anywhere, but
while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I
can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet
species don't."

"Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of
laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and
spread humankind. I think that's worth doing. There will be another
mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of
thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other
planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely
conceivable. We're in the infancy of it."

"I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is, but
there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We
may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on
the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making
habitats on asteroids. We've got places that humans will go, not in our
lifetime, but they will go there."

"generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize
the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than
in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe.
Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the
shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent
we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle."

Neil Halelamien;
NASA's Griffin: 'Humans Will Colonize the Solar System'
Not without our first establishing a LUNAR SPACE ELEVATOR, and that's a
matter of fact.

Of course we could always lease a portion of the Russian/Chinese LSE
for a mere trillion or so bucks per year. But, what if the LSE owner is
France? Then what?
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.

Vale Mike Griffin, I like this article.
Lets hope he 'goes forward' with these plans with great force

"blart" wrote in message
...
Vale Mike Griffin, I like this article.
Lets hope he 'goes forward' with these plans with great force


I agree.
Ray

On 25 Sep 2005 12:58:41 -0700, "Neil Halelamien"
wrote, in part:

The Washington Post has an interview with NASA Head Mike Griffin in
which he discusses his views on space colonization:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301691.html

Even if those things have been said before, it's nice to hear them from
someone in a high place.

I did notice what seemed to be a weakness in his statements among parts
of the interview you did not quote.

Referring vaguely to "American values" or "Western values" in an attempt
to _avoid_ controversy only makes things worse, because it makes him
sound like an advocate of ethnic or cultural chauvinism. Instead, in
this case, copying the vocabulary used by George W. Bush, however
controversial he is, would be in this case less controversial... or, in
fact, one can also go to the Democratic side of the fence as well.

Not the speech at Rice University, but instead an address to Congress:

"We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must
fully share."

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

"Neil Halelamien" wrote in message
oups.com...
The Washington Post has an interview with NASA Head Mike Griffin in
which he discusses his views on space colonization:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092301691.html

A few quotes:

"But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about
extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar
system as we go forward in time. . . .



Isn't is also about benefiting the human race down here
on earth? How is this generic scientific exploration going
to change things for the better? Or is simply gathering 'data'
and end in itself?




In the long run a single-planet
species will not survive.


In order to justify a long term investment that yields ....zero...
returns for anyone but themselves, the long term is redefined
to mean 50,000 years, or is it one million?

How convenient.




We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species
have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30
million years. ... We don't know of any other species anywhere, but
while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I
can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet
species don't."

"Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of
laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and
spread humankind.



So the goal is to propagate the species then? I can think
of another term for what this program is doing to the taxpayers.



I think that's worth doing. There will be another
mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of
thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other
planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely
conceivable. We're in the infancy of it."

"I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is,



Could you at least tell us what those four astronauts will be
doing on the Moon? Collecting more rocks, building a shack?
What? Why are they going there?



but
there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We
may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on
the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making
habitats on asteroids.



Once we run out of oil, food and our climate is swinging from
steam to ice...yes...we'll probably go to those places.
The entire point is to prevent those things from happening
so we don't ....have....to evacuate.

How is Nasa's long term goal in any way help these earthly
problems our future is sure to expose?


We've got places that humans will go, not in our
lifetime, but they will go there."


Success for this program will only be measured in centuries.
In other words since there are no real goals being set, there
is nothing that needs to be accomplished. Perfect!
No objective way at all to determine whether this program
is meeting/exceeding or failing expectations in return for
the money. Since there are none.

How convenient.



"generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize
the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than
in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe.
Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the
shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent
we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle."


So Nasa is mountain climbing. For the sake of it, just because
it's there. This policy statement merely means we are not
even contemplating the exploitation of space or related
technology. We are not in the mountain 'mining' phase, just
still climbing, look around, take a few pictures
and go home.


Then we can all toast these elite explorers for their grand
adventure. Kind of like the peasants cheering the return
of their King from an exotic hunt. Look at all the strange
things! Wow.

For Nasa to call this a 'vision' is pornographic.

Unless Nasa's goal is wrapped around ....OUR...future
not there own careers, it is a vision of space that has as it's
goal the exploitation of ....us.

This, or something like it, is what we should be doing
with the new hardware.

Space Solar Power Home
http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/


This administrator is a yes man for the White House.
President Bush gets to completely reorganize Nasa
through his limited and militaristic lens. And in return
Nasa gets promises for future missions that other
administrations will have to honor.

I imagine President Bush told 'em, "plan any mission you
want" if you'll implement my 'vision'. Why not, he knows
some other President will have to fund them, so they'll
never happen.

Nasa gets it's wish list...or so it thinks.

What fools. Unless Nasa's goals inspire everyone
at once, they have no legs at all. Solving our energy
future qualifies. As it bring America future independence
and prosperity. It would bring stability to global warming.
It would reduce wars over diminishing resources.
It would help bring electricity and prosperity to the
entire world.

And ya know what, we'd probable have to go to the
Moon anyways to pull it all off. Only difference is that
now we'd have a reason to see it through. A reason to
fund it for the long term.


Nasa
Main Entry: pur·pose·less
Pronunciation: -l&s
Function: adjective
: having no purpose : AIMLESS, MEANINGLESS



Jonathan

s





Jonathan

s