A very good example of the mentality that created a GNDN can be glimpsed with the two interpretations of a speech by Pres. Kennedy. A famous excerpt from that speech in 1961-"...land a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth...".

In 1969, the speech was perceived as a call for America to become a spacefaring nation with colonies on the moon, Mars, and beyond. "Return to Tomorrow", a second year Star Trek episode, reflects this philosophy.

In the early 21st century, the speech is a literal translation, not an implied translation. A human goes to the moon, lands, and returns safely to the Earth. America succeeds with Apollo 11 in 1969. The other six missions are judged in the context of answering the question-where did the moon arise? As one administrator at NASA stated in an interview, the current perception held by the public is that the moon is a BTDT ("Been There, Done That") type of world. A new goal for NASA is to land humans on the distant red planet of Mars.

The issue with this is that the funding for NASA has not increased. Rather, the funding has been reduced. Considering that NASA accounts for 1 percent of the national budget, NASA is operating on a very small budget. And, what's worse, the station Alpha, a purported stepping stone to Mars, has a price cap and, to keep the station orbital, the budget for other programs at NASA are either reduced or eliminated all together. Some of these programs are for the human studies of Mars. So, in effect, the space station is killing its successor by consuming the majority of the consumables. We will have a tolerably acceptable space station with limited science capablities. Haven't we had this before? Oh, yes. Surya, Skylab, Mir. Like I said, GNDN.

After all this stupidity and short-sightedness, I feel very strongly that America will be eventually eclipsed by other spacefaring nations and, may in the future, be a Portugal or Spain. These ancient countries, in the Age of the Renaissance, usher in the Age of Exploration. Other countries, most notably England, are the successors of these first two countries. I ask myself, what country will become the space-age England? These "Englanders" will not be exhilarated by, even less watch, a niche sci-fi show to go into the space endeavor. They will be excited by the possibilities that await in space and the bounty that can be gained.

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

[ July 31, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

The ISS nicely shows what space is like. There's no money coming in from manned spaceflight, there's just this gigantic sinkhole for it. There won't be any money there in the foreseeable future. You have to build big to attain even the most modest goals, and you have to be willing to throw a lot of good money after bad because the initial deposit of bad is so darn big that you can't just forget about it and start anew.

Yet unless something like the ISS is done at first, there'll never be any progress. Nobody is moving industries to space if it has to be done in small scale, lacking a practical surface-to-orbit-AND-BACK infrastructure. A one-shot mission to Mars, or Jupiter, or Alpha Centauri, won't jump-start anything because it will be just another money sinkhole that will prove how useless and unprofitable space is. But once we get used to the idea that space is conquered by burning more $$$ than hydrogen, that it's *supposed* to be hideously expensive and that there is no profit in it, *then* we can move on and do something useful there.

Luring people to think that space is like Star Trek will ultimately be counterproductive. Perhaps it would help if "Enterprise" showed us that Starfleet siphons off 69% of Earth's GNP and that there is a special space tax of 30% on everybody's income, and only thanks to this can the heroes have adventures in outer space.

(BTW: Is say 'first', because in ancient times, the Egyptians, Chinese and Vikings already had contact with the Americas)

As for the future of spacefaring, I think Russia still has the most potential. With the Buran returning to service in the forseeable future, they are still have the most 'usable' spacefleet. NASA only builds prototypes and uses super high-tech machines (which is a good thing!) that usually are not suited for repeated use, while Russia uses old (or too old) and proven machines, which remarkable keep running and running. They were the first to pioneer commercial spaceflight earlier this year.

And of coure the large companies could be winners as well. The Microsoft Space Corporation?

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Harry ]

Really, spin-offs from those two programs gave us virtually every bit of technology we take for granted today, from the PC to freeze-dried food to the MRI to the power screwdriver.

And as for "Star Wars," I'll have to look up Larry Niven's essay on how the technologies from it could be used, but here's a quote from a Niven interview you might find interesting...

quote:

---

The wealth (as in flying cars) predicted by Heinlein and his followers (including myself) was another matter. It all went to welfare programs.

Vast numbers of people are microscopically better off for that, except that we all have less to aspire to.

Here is where the predictions failed: We didn't take Cargo Cult mentality into account [that being] "if somebody has something I don't, he must have stolen it."

We didn't understand how good we could get at communication -- when you have something that someone else doesn't, the whole damn planet knows it. But the space defense initiative drove the USSR bankrupt, and it originated at my house in Tarzana.

---

[ August 02, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]

I don't know what Surya is. You must be thinking of Salyut. Furthermore, space stations DO serve a purpose. The Salyuts (the ones that worked, anyway), Skylab, and Mir have all provided knowledge about living and working in space. That said...

The ISS is quite possibly the most horribly designed mechanical object ever conceived. NASA spent millions of dollars asking independent consultants what the best way to build a station was. They all said the exact same thing: Skylab. Build it like Skylab. NASA then proceeded to ignore this unanimous advise and built it the most complicated, most expensive, most dangerous way they could think of. In fairness, it was forced to do this because NASA has become the prison bitch of the U.S. government. Though, since this has happened NASA has adamantly defended its bent over position and continually professes its boldness in exploring the final frontier, which is complete bullshit at this point.

Note: I am of course speakking of manned exploration, NASA is pretty decent with robotic probes, although they are incapable of coming close to human efficiency in exploration.

As for any other location serving as a new home for a space faring humanity, there is none other than Mars. Robert Zubrin uses the example of Antarctica and North America with the respective potential of the moon and Mars. The moon/Antarctica are scientifically useful, but they are far too inhospitable and barren to serve as a future home of a new branch of civilization. However Mars has all the natural resources capable of becoming a home to millions upon millions of pepole. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen (possibly in very large amounts - 2001 Mars Odyssey should find out), and methane. Its day, axial tilt, landmass, etc etc are all similar to earth. I needn't go on. Read The Case For Mars.

But you must realize also the feasibility of exploring Mars in the near term, which is the real goal. I'm not going into the schpeel now, as I just finished two weeks of giving it over and over again as part of a temporary exhibit at Kennedy Space Center. But nevertheless, read The Case For Mars.