This Space Review article ought to raise some eyebrows

Some of those who are overzealously advocating one niche of spaceflight
and/or spaceflight technology ought to have a look at this article. By
overzealously advocating a single aspect of spaceflight (such as space solar
power, or on-orbit refueling, or completely outsourcing NASA's
non-exploration side to the private sector), these folks do the wider space
community a disservice (a few trolls here might recognize their POV)....a
lesson for us all.

Here's the link: http://www.spacereview.com/article/1534/1

Matt Wiser wrote:

OK: here's the corrected link, My bad, and my humblest apologies (the
problem of typing while one's allergy meds are at work)

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1534/1

The article would make a lot more sense if it weren't for the fact that
NASA came up with something as flawed as Ares I/Orion (Jupiter/DIRECT
was the product not of crazed space fans, but disgruntled space industry
workers who thought Ares I/V was unlikely to work)
I don't know what he's going after "VASIMIR" for (he didn't even spell
it correctly, it's VASIMR), as the prototype engine has already run
successfully.


Pat

The problem I have with the jist of this article is the underlying
opinion that there is only the 'one true path' into space and that
has somehow already been magically divined for us by NASA.

I think we're in a 'post-program' era for space. There's just far too
much going on for one bureaucracy to handle. And for the significant
manned exploration tasks ahead, its too much for one government to
handle.

Believe it or not, free enterprise (or even socialist enterprise) may
be the only way forward as it's one of the few mechanisms known to be
able to handle the long term duration of what is needed going forward,
because we're way beyond what can be accomplished by a single US
administration or even a single '5-year plan' if you prefer that model.

A historical model would be to compare what Queen Ferdinand was able
to accomplish with one-off funding projects, vs what the Dutch East
Indies trading companies were able to accomplish. Of course opening
up space will be far more challenging than was opening up the
'New World'.

Like it or not, unless its only flags and footprints, and the national
sense of inferiority it requires to make the necessary economic tradeoffs,
we're into consortium's like the ISS is today... We might as well get
used to it and learn how to do it right. NASA needs to learn how to be
a reliable partner to those consortiums. The prior NACA model is probably
instructive here.

Dave

David Spain wrote:
The problem I have with the jist of this article is the underlying
opinion that there is only the 'one true path' into space and that
has somehow already been magically divined for us by NASA.

Dwayne Day's articles are usually a lot less strident than this (he's
basically the only reason I read Space Review, as the rest of the
writers seem way too blue sky when it comes to space exploration and how
to fund it)and to me at least, it seemed like he wrote this in a very
****ed-off mood.
But there is a zeitgeist out there that America really is "lost in
space" with no clear idea or direction about what to do next, or even
why to do anything for that matter.
I laughed my ass off when I found this today:
http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/r...g=2&imagepos=1
That was Edward Purkis Frost's steam-powered, goose-feather-covered
ornithopter from 1902.
....Frost later became president of The Royal Aeronautical Society*.
So although some of the ideas being thrown around at present by
wild-eyed space enthusiasts may be impractical in their present form,
you never can know what might evolve from them.

* It could also indicate that it wasn't _what_ you knew, but _who_ you
knew, that got you to be elected to that post.


Pat