Re: Space "Programs" {was Re: SpaceDev and SEC}

[Dave Clements <clements@xxxxxx>]

On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Dejan Bajic wrote:

I'm a little confused by your post, Dejan. I think we're essentially
agreeing with each other about the broad sweep. Independent space
developers, like SpaceDev, the new SSTO launcher companies etc., are
preferable to a monolithic state sponsored programme, and you don't get a
'programme' without some monolithic control structure. Thus while we may
be in a better position wrt. broad access to space in the near future, one
can't say how this is going to happen, when or where. What you seem to be
arguing for is to have *both* the private companies *and* an adventurous
and expansive NASA programme. This might sound good, but I doubt that it
would be possible to arrange. If you have a 300 pound Gorilla in the
playground, as a well funded NASA expansion programme would be, everyone
plays the gorilla's tune. When NASA is not in such a dominant position, as
is the case now, there is much more room for  individual innovation.
With a programme everyone must follow the plan, whether its a good plan or
not. Without one you can take a more omnivorous approach, which is often
more effective since you can't plan for the unexpected.

We do disagree on some of the small points though!

> >There may be no programme but there seems, to me at least, to be more
> >going on.
> 
> That depends of course, on what you mean by "going on."  What is really
> going on?  Oh yes, I forgot that space station thing, oh no that's not

The Space Station, to me, is a political irrelevance. It keeps the big
boys in the business, so in a sense is a useful subsidy, but its eating a
lot of people's lunches. 

> going on, yet, right?  Possibly some manned missions outside of LEO?  Maybe
> a "hop-skip-and-a-jump" to check on that "water" on the moon (there's some
> science for you), etc., etc., etc. (take your pick of missed
> oppurtunities-bureaucratic slowness-antiquated technology-wasteful
> expenditures)?  Oh no, I forgot, NASA still intent on growing plants and
> trying out toilets in space.  But there's some things on the horizon,

The key thing to be done at the moment is not some attention grabbing
all-out push for manned missions to the Moon or anywhere, but getting
cheap access to LEO. After all that's 'halfway to anywhere'. That's what
Roton, Pioneer Rocketplane, Kistler and all the others are doing and that
is one of the key things happening at the moment. Its unheard of that
there are so many independent, innovative launch vehicles in development,
and may be a phase change in how space is developed.

This is something that is happening, and not only something, but something
different.

> right?  Like those telescopes they're going to send up (barring an
> unforeseen Congressional, etc., action, no problems with this).  They also

I'm not sure what your dislike of telescopes is, or where you get the idea
that they're all waiting. Or maybe you've not been looking broadly enough?
ESA's Infrared Space Observatory has been a great success, SOHO, despite
recent troubles, has performed very well, ASCA has done remarkable things
in X-ray astronomy, Galileo has overcome big problems to revolutionise our
view of the jovian system, Cassini is on its way, Mars is being mapped and
studied, AXAF and XMM will revolutionise X-ray astronomy, and there are
still HST and GRO working well, as well as SAX and numerous smaller
missions. Telescopes are up there, working, and continue to be launched,
not only by NASA but by Europe and Japan and others. Or does your
knowledge and interest in space stop at the US boarder?

> have plans for some "real" missions to Mars sometime in the future, but do
> these really have a chance of happening, in the next ten years say?  In our
> collective lifetimes?  I wouldn't hold my breath.

Whats a 'real' mission by your definition? 

> In a way you're right NASA and the "programmatic" paradigm works reasonably
> well for science at this time (SpaceDev is at least one of the companies
> hoping to get in on this) but in almost anything else, does
> NASA-governmental paradigm really have a chance?  I don't think so, and I'm
> sure many others would agree.

This is just what I was saying wasn't it? A programatic approach is not
the best paradigm at the current time, so we shouldn't bemoan the lack of
a space programme.
 
> To tell you the truth, at least from my prespective, there is not much
> going on except for stagnation (but then I'm not employed by NASA in any
> way, shape, or form so...).

Neither am I, but I'm interested in what point you were trying to draw...
 
> future.  Now, I am not under the impression that these almost totally
> profit driven ventures will be just waiting to send me up, but at least if
> one or two or even more (dare we say) get up maybe they will provide a sort
> of "foothold" in space, a foot in the door of cheap space access for
> everyone (no matter what there goals).  Of course there are a lot of
> "maybe's," but in my view they at least provide some real chance in the
> future, some hope, at least more so than was provided in the "big
> government" (only possibility) "space is a program not a place," days. 

I'm agreeing with you here - didn't you notice?

Like I said, I was a bit confused by your post.

Dave







References:
Space "Programs" {was Re: SpaceDev and SEC}
From: "Dejan Bajic" <adastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>





	

	Date


	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>Previous
	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>List
       	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>Next



	
	

	Thread


	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>Previous
	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>List
	<td bgcolor=#b0b0b0
 width=33%>Last