A while back you surmised what the US space program “could have been” had it stayed on course after we successfully made the moon landings. (damn if I can find the post) It was really inspiring as I had never heard it explained in such detail before. I was wondering, in the same light, what your opinion on today’s sad event will be on our space program and NASA? WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Attachment #1, (jpg file)

I am not Shelly, but I think this does say something about the space program (and this isn't meant as a sick joke or to marginalize what happened today).

http://www.pcqanda.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=54025&forum=computer#6

Actually I heard that somwhere else today. It's sad but probably true.WALDO

Walter A Robertson

Just this morning I read a joke from a web site that I had downloaded into my PDA the night before. The question posed to an astronaut was "What makes you nervous about space flight?" And that was the answer to it.

The timing of it is kinda spooky.

JP

published in 1987.

As well as probing the cause of the disaster it gives a fascinating insight into NASA's post Apollo years and the politics involved in designing the shuttle and the awarding of contracts.

Many people don't realize that the eventual shuttle design was a compromise, the original design called for a completely re-usable 2 stage vehicle but due to (mainly) economic reasons NASA chose the eventual design they have now.

As Malcolm McConnell says: "Instead of a racing horse, NASA got a camel instead - better than no transportation at all, but hardly the steed it should have chosen."

Carl

There is no way to prevent accidents in space flight, and everyone involved has always known that. The shuttle itself was a compromise vehicle. The original plans for the shuttle were for a craft that would take off and land under its own power utilizing a runway much as a conventional aircraft. After the moon program, the Nixon administration slashed the funding of NASA, forcing it to either abandon manned flight entirely, or find a way to redesign the shuttle project within the funding limits available. This was the genesis of the spacecraft we are still using today, because there was no support in Washington to develop the next generation of the shuttle a few years ago. You may recall the design award for the Lifting Body that died for lack of funding.

The currant shuttle design is the most intricate vehicle ever built. It was a brilliant solution at the time, and has every possible redundancy to guard against mechanical or electrical failure of critical systems. But the public must realize that space travel can never be completely safe. There will always be accidents. It can be argued that the shuttle has already demonstrated itself to be the safest means of travel ever devised. It certainly has a better safety record than cars, trains, boats, or conventional aircraft.

My own feeling is that the space program should be largely privatized. The government lacks the incentive or the will to proceed to the next stage. Private industry with the help initially of government incentives, is more likely to continue this nations leadership in space. We are rapidly depleting this planet's resources. There are vast stores of replacement resources within our reach in the solar system. Entrepreneurs will find a way to reach them and profit from them. Nearly every significant technological advance in the last four decades has come out of the space program. What other wonders would we have seen if the program had not beed starved for funding?

Shelly

>....We are rapidly depleting this planet's resources. There are
> vast stores of replacement resources within our reach in the solar > system.

People think i'm crazy when i tell them that the space station is a precursor for what is to come in the future. I believe (maybe not my lifetime) in generations to come, my grandkids or great greatkids will be living in the International Space Station.

Why would the worlds government pool their efforts together and invest not millions...but $ BILLIONS $ of dollars in this endeavor? Scientists have known for years that our earth's capacity to support life is dwindling - and w/ the population explosion going on, the time will come when we will have to make some tough decisions.

m2c.

>People think i'm crazy when i tell them that the space
>station is a precursor for what is to come in the future. I
>believe (maybe not my lifetime) in generations to come, my
>grandkids or great greatkids will be living in the
>International Space Station.


Well, maybe not the ISS, but maybe some descendant of it.

"my grandkids or great greatkids will be living in the International Space Station."

Err...I hope not, it would be kind of crowded.

They may be living on Mars, or the Moon, or perhaps a moon of Jupiter or Saturn, but not on a construct in low earth orbit. For the next few centuries at least, most of humanity will probably be living on Earth

Shelly

>>....We are rapidly depleting this planet's resources. There are
>> vast stores of replacement resources within our reach in the solar > system.

Someone, government, private citizens, would have to marshal, and then commit the resources here on Earth first.
>
>People think i'm crazy when i tell them that the space
>station is a precursor for what is to come in the future. I
>believe (maybe not my lifetime) in generations to come, my
>grandkids or great greatkids will be living in the
>International Space Station.
>
There will never, ever be a functioning “Space Station” as most of us perceive space stations. Someone or somebody has to pay for it. What with today’s events, and the possibility of the “Space Program” finally becoming too expensive to run, not even our government will continue to fund missions to places which, in the larger scheme of things, hold no future for humankind, and whose own future is in doubt.

>Why would the worlds government pool their efforts together
>and invest not millions...but $ BILLIONS $ of dollars in
>this endeavor? Scientists have known for years that our
>earth's capacity to support life is dwindling - and w/ the
>population explosion going on, the time will come when we
>will have to make some tough decisions.
>
I agree, but not about going off on jaunts to Mars and beyond. We will have to make the tough decisions here, on Earth or else face the possibility of “Soylent Green”. What the scientists haven’t told you is just how damned expensive it’s going to be just to live in 50-100 years.
The precursor for what the world faces in the future is staring tens of thousands of people in the face in this country today: either pay your electric/oil heating/gas bill or eat. Forget buying new clothes.
And what are we going to do with our parents as they age, leave them behind?
(Ooo-damn, forgot about them did you)?

As we all age, and as out illnesses begin to consume more and more of our shrinking dollars, we by then “Old timers” aren’t about to let the “guvmint” spend billions of frivolous dollars on “Space” when we’re running out of other resources here on Earth.

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

Pretty much a pessimist, aren't you, Ed?

> Pretty much a pessimist, aren't you, Ed?

No Al, a realist. Triage is a capacity for drawing difficult decisions. In this instance, knowing what will help the Earth and society survive means making difficult choices now, not later, when the country and its population are on a slide towards oblivion. I am one who took on even more of my attitude lurking here. Overweening optimism is often met by the triage team, going by whatever name, who note the name and brand of “bitter pill” one must swallow to achieve healing. What good is it to be an optimist when the country is sliding into an economic chaos we might not stop or pull out of?
During the "Clinton years" this economy roared ahead mostly on rank speculation tied directly to the booming tech stocks and the tens of millions of women who started small businesses. Those small businesses, fueled by the boom, prospered, creating millions of jobs and spin-off industries. But all that has come to a screeching halt with the tech stocks and Dot.coms going belly up or broke. No more platoons of rich, stay at home women swooping down on suburban shopping malls to while-away their afternoons breaking in a handful of new plastic at one of those Kitzy little “Tony” shops that thrived during the same time. Nope, even they are out looking for jobs and trying to sell off all those gas guzzling SUVs they talked themselves and their old man into buying.

And why wouldn’t I be a little pessimistic when my Wal*Mart stock is getting kicked, as the saying goes, to the curb? Until Junior came along, Wal*Mart, like others, was going great guns selling everything including their sidewalks at their sidewalk sales. The stock flirted with $60 until Junior took charge. The deficit went up and Wal*Mart took a nosedive to around $46 a share. Wal*Mart, with more than 4,500 stores and 2,000,000 cash registers, down by as much as 2%? No way Jose! No way!
If Wal*Mart is down, the country must be sucking eggs and Wal*Mart is down... big time. Gas is up to $1.67 a gallon in my area, far worse in others. More teens are having babies and abortions than ever. Our gallant military, in service to their country, sees as many as 68% of their enlisted grades on either Food Stamps or outright welfare. Think they’re going to get a serious pay raise, one that might take them out of poverty? Sure they will. Junior is going to give them a raise the same size as the tax cuts he gave his buddies and buddets.
(Yeah…right!)

I’m so certain Junior and his inexperienced minions can’t handle the Space Shuttle-Iraq-Korea-Economy-War-gas price increase crisis' that I’ve dusted off my survival gear, bought new generators, fresh components for my ammo reloaders and the other things a man thinks about in times like these. The Shuttle did it for me. We don't know what Junior cut out of the NASA budget that might have had an effect in Shuttle preparations but you know it had some.
*(While a trusty 106mm Recoilless Rifle might be out of the question, I’m beginning my hunt for a M-60 or fully functional BAR).

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO! DSL

>The Shuttle did it for me. We don't know what
>Junior cut out of the NASA budget that might have had an
>effect in Shuttle preparations but you know it had some.

While I might not be Bush's biggest fan (far from it), I've got to say that the NASA cutbacks don't solely rest on his shoulders. It's been going on for quite awhile over many presidents and congresses. And while I'm not sure that a bigger budget would have prevented this tragedy (we don't even know the cause just yet), I do think that more money to NASA wouldn't be a bad thing.

>>The Shuttle did it for me. We don't know what
>>Junior cut out of the NASA budget that might have had an
>>effect in Shuttle preparations but you know it had some.
>
>While I might not be Bush's biggest fan (far from it), I've
>got to say that the NASA cutbacks don't solely rest on his
>shoulders. It's been going on for quite awhile over many
>presidents and congresses. And while I'm not sure that a
>bigger budget would have prevented this tragedy (we don't
>even know the cause just yet), I do think that more money to
>NASA wouldn't be a bad thing.

Some are pointing towards missing tiles. That may have ben a contributing factor.
As an optical tooling specialist, (working with engineering tolearances of plus or minus 1/10,000 of an inch), I helped build the master tools for the BOEING 737-747, and having worked on the engineering tools design section, (737 and 747 landing gear doors), and since the preliminary evidence has shown heating in and around the wheel well, I will venture this guess as to what happened:
the damn landing gear door was either fully or partially open (or fell open after the locking mechanism failed), allowing superheated air into the interior of the left wing.
That big bright flash of gear that first broke off from the fuselage, traveling along side it for a bit, was the left wing or parts of it. Once they put the computers to the video and enhance the wing area, I'll bet that is what they find.

It was the heating around the wheel well that brought Columbia down. My educated guess.

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

Ed, I agree with that theory or the current one of left-wing damage during liftoff.

Assuming the latter, the incident needn't have been fatal. Two vital pieces of equipment were NOT present (hindsight 20/20).

1. An MMU (Manned Maneuvering Unit) and a tether sufficiently long to allow on-orbit inspection of the Orbiter. This could have confirmed the damage, if any.

2. An ISS Docking Collar. Then if damage sufficient to endanger re-entry was found, the Shuttle could have docked with the ISS to wait for the March launch of Atlantis. This would not, of course, have saved Columbia but probably could have saved the crew.

I admit I'm not a rocket scientist but wouldn't these have helped. True they consume space and weight, but an acceptable trade-off, I think.

NASA cannot be criticized for not having a "spare-tire", but some "flares", "rain-gear" and a "tent" are no-brainers.

Dan\'l

Dan'l, two problems with your suggestions. One is the lack of space (weight)for that extra gear. And if they did make space for it, then the rest of the scientific payload would have had to have been reduced.

The other is that the Columbia, by design, is to heavy to reach the orbit of the space station, even if it was launched directly to it. And no shuttle can change the altitude of their orbit that much once it is established. That would take a LOT of fuel (more fuel than they can carry) because the shuttle missions typically fly lower orbits than the space station.

JP

Dan'l, he has neither the knowledge nor the evidence to offer an "educated guess".

As for your points, a reply is deserved. There is no way the Columbia carrying the payload it did could have reached the orbit of the ISS under any circumstances, either from its orbit or even directly from the ground. It was too heavy for the amount of fuel it could carry. That is why it carried no docking mechanism or MMU's. NASA tried years ago to find a way to repair tiles in orbit, and gave up due to the problems involved. The only possibility I can see for a possible rescue of the crew would have been the launch of another shuttle to rendezvous with the Columbia. There was sufficient consumables aboard to provide life support for perhaps another two weeks, but such a mission would have been extremely dangerous to both crews. It is also questionable if the next launch could have been mounted in the time available. It is likely that the mission was doomed from the time it was launched, and nothing anyone could have done, in space or on the ground could have changed it. The launch could also have been aborted and the shuttle could have landed in Spain safely. But even the preliminary analysis of the launch anomaly was not not available until they were already in orbit.

Realize that the guys who engineer and manage the shuttle flights are really sharp, they didn't get there by being the last in their classes. Yes they can make mistakes, they are human, and under tremendous pressure, but they are the best in the world.

Shelly

Thank you Shelly for your knowledgeable reply. I agree that NASA are the brightest. I understand the issue with the ISS now as well. But I bet they find a way to make space for EVA units in the future. Given your answers, this might have allowed them to decide not to re-enter. Maybe the consumables could have been stretched to 3 weeks in hardship mode. And maybe also the Atlantis could have been expedited from 4 weeks to 3.

All ifs and hindsight, I know; but one can always dream. Thanks again for your reply and yours also JP.

Dan\'l

>My own feeling is that the space program should be largely privatized.

The news at one point was interviewing someone. When he was asked if he would go back up if offered, he answered he would, but it would be better to send up someone like Bill Gates or another businessman. Someone who would be able to say "I have an idea for a business based on this" and who would have the resources to make it happen.

I definitely agree with this feeling. Imagine if someone with Bill Gate's resources (putting aside any anti-MS feelings for the second ) were to get excited about business in space.

Very interesting coincidence: NASA's 2004 Fiscal Year budget is going to be previewed this Monday. I wonder if this will spur Congress to give NASA some more money so they don't have to pinch pennies as much. (Granted, they shouldn't be allowed to run wild with cash, but there's got to be a good middle ground.)

Perhaps birth control is a crucial requirement more than ever. Having more than 2 or 3 or 4 children is just not a good idea. Of course there are complications because of economic, religious, cultural, educational and practical considerations. I am not saying there is an easy answer or imposing my views. In fact, birth control itself is not foolproof.

But having the number of children you can raise well and be healthy and happy should be the criteria; of course only when there is the means to issue birth control to the population and if you can make it acceptable to them.

It seems that setting up a dome or whatever on Mars is looking for trouble too. Murphy's Law. Sloppy construction, accidents, unforeseen problems, new unmastered technologies, etc. could create a possibility of a huge disaster.

There is a forest in an acorn.

I'll have as many goddamned children as I want, thank you.

You will get special dispensation MadDad! lol

China and India are far the largest two countries in the world. However, if they are living in harmony with the earth that is not a problem.

But where pollution, over-farming, forest clearing, over-fishing, etc etc etc is a problem, we better think twice.

I can't say I know which countries are the worst polluters, Kyoto Conference will supply those figures. I can't say which countries have a population that is severely in distress from food shortages, natural disasters, etc.

I just know earth has it's limits. I would like to have the answers to those questions and have seen some reports in the past. But even with that knowledge, what is the answer?

There is a forest in an acorn.

well, to be honest, my days of populating the planet are over.
vasectomy, ya know.
but thanks for the consideration

MadDad? Do you have MadChildren as well? I'm envisioning Madville, populated with madpeople. "let's all go to the MadMall". I think I'm going to make another MadPost....... WALDO

Walter A Robertson

ever hear of "Mad" magazine? That's us.

World population figures:

http://www.geohive.com/global/pop_data2.php

There is a forest in an acorn.

The answer is WAR.

Even in the natural world, (plants, animals, insects, etc.) nature clears out the over-populators and makes room for the next order of whatever. Animals kill their young when there is no room or food.

We humans like to think we have a certain level of sophistication, but we still follow the natural law. Only the strong survive.

This being said, we have made great strides in attempting to make our world a safer place for all, and in extending as much opportunity as possible to all. However, we are still human and as humans we revert to our most base instincts on occassion.

I truly believe that one day there will be heaven on earth - I just wish it could be in my lifetime!

In Pitcairn Islands http://www.geohive.com/global/pop_data2.php

The amish community around here is having problems, not so much with incest, but with a shrinking gene base. I'd offer to help, but see reply #13

I would like to have the
>answers to those questions and have seen some reports in the
>past. But even with that knowledge, what is the answer?

Soylent Green

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

Pass the ketchup please....

There is a forest in an acorn.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty/Hunger/Solutions.asp

http://www.buehlers.com/

China has been widely critized for its one child edict

81 Newbee

They may be criticized but at least they are now feeding all their people.

>I'll have as many goddamned children as I want, thank you.

Polluter!

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

go to hell.

It never ceases to amaze me how many experts we have on this forum that lack any knowledge at all about a subject under discussion. I guess ignorance never stopped anyone from having the solution to every problem. At least not in any bar I have ever been in.

For your information, Bush is the first president since Johnson that has effectively increased NASA's budget. That is about the only good thing I can say about W. Clinton repeatedly reduced spending on the space program, to the point that it probably began impacting flight safety.

The tragic loss of the Columbia will have no impact upon the space station. Although the Columbia is unlikely to be replaced, as was the Challenger by the Endeavor, and it leaves us with only three functioning shuttles. The Columbia, weighing 180,000 pounds, was the only shuttle that was incapable of reaching the orbit of the space station. The reason that another vehicle in the current shuttle series will not be built is because the Endeavor was constructed largely of spare parts in storage for the maintenance of the other shuttles, and these parts are now largely gone. In fact NASA has been going on eBay to buy components that are no longer manufactured. That should give you some idea of the state of NASA's budget.

Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green. That was fiction. Thankfully, most of us live in the real world, but that world has real problems that will not be solved by stopgap measures like taking away personal freedom, or reassigning the money for the space program. Congress is perfectly capable of squandering NASA's entire budget in a single session on pork projects.

The long term solutions lie in the new knowledge and technologies that we can barely imagine today. Where are these to come from? Certainly not from folding our tent and regressing to past paradigms. The future belongs to those people and nations with the will, determination, and courage to press forward into new fields of human knowledge.

If I were to die tomorrow it would be with the knowledge that we will return to the Moon, we will go to and eventually live on Mars and beyond, and from the new knowledge we gain in the process, we will solve the problems of Earth. And that belief was what drove the seven astronauts who died yesterday.

Shelly

Thanks Shelly, thats what I was looking for.WALDO

Walter A Robertson

This is a pretty good run down on the situation http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101030210/story.html Among a lot of other things it says is that their wake up call from NASA yesterday was "Scotland the Brave" by the 51st Highland Brigade. WALDO

Walter A Robertson

The technology exists to construct an orbiter that can both take-off and land under it's own power. The problem is money. I wonder how those that cut NASA's budget felt after the Challenger mishap, and again after Columbia's demise. If we are serious about space exploration, we must use the best technology available - not a scaled down compromise. One day, and I believe it may be in my lifetime ( I am 48 ), we will see an orbiter that flies back and forth from the Space Station like a 747.

I believe in the pioneering spirit of our nation. I also believe that other nations are now willing to come on board in this endeavor. The exploration of space, and the International Space Station, are the beginnings of peace and understanding among the peoples of our world.

I wish I could go into space.

Michael

>Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green.
>That was fiction.

Shelly, you can't be serious! I can't believe you said that! Who wouldn't know that?

I don't feel as confident as you about living in a hostile atmosphere on another planet. Anyone there would be too vunerable. Yer asking for trouble!

And countries from Earth would fight over that foreign land too. Rape the environment, start wars....just an extention of Earth. Nothing special. People are people, wherever they go. Unless you are hoping for a science fiction miracle where atmospheres can be changed and human nature too.

Good luck!

There is a forest in an acorn.

There is no "miracle" to changing atmospheres. Just time and work. Most of the people who write hard science fiction are real scientists.

Al
Please tell me how? What are the most plausible theories? How may scientists does it take to change the atmosphere?

There is a forest in an acorn.

by Kim Stanley Robinson. Not only is it an excellent story (trilogy), but the scientific theory that is relied on to describe "terraforming" a planet is accurate.

I think that trilogy is the definitive SF mars work. It easily eclipses everything else I have seen.

BTW, there is nothing beyond our technology about teraforming, it just takes a long time, and a big investment. Some things have to be thought about in terms of generations.

Shelly

>It never ceases to amaze me how many experts we have on this
>forum that lack any knowledge at all about a subject under
>discussion. I guess ignorance never stopped anyone from
>having the solution to every problem. At least not in any
>bar I have ever been in.

The original poster asked you to remember for them a certain post you made. The thread then wandered as threads do, to varied topics, one of which I commented on. I know what and from where the name "Soylent Green" sprung. And though it was a movie, it spoke to the future, which is what we all were speaking to. Again you use you position to bully and denigrate. At some time, you too ought to temper your comments.
As to my comment: the original "subject under discussion" was your post the writer asked you about.
"Ignorance" is your comment, itself out of context to the subject at hand.

>
>For your information, Bush is the first president since
>Johnson that has effectively increased NASA's budget. That
>is about the only good thing I can say about W. Clinton
>repeatedly reduced spending on the space program, to the
>point that it probably began impacting flight safety.

An "effectively increased NASA budget" is still a drop in the bucket compared to their real budgetary needs.

>Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green.
>That was fiction. Thankfully, most of us live in the real
>world, but that world has real problems that will not be
>solved by stopgap measures like taking away personal
>freedom, or reassigning the money for the space program.
>Congress is perfectly capable of squandering NASA's entire
>budget in a single session on pork projects.
>
The long term solutions lie in the new knowledge and
>technologies that we can barely imagine today. Where are
>these to come from? Certainly not from folding our tent
>and regressing to past paradigms. The future belongs to
>those people and nations with the will, determination, and
>courage to press forward into new fields of human knowledge.
>
No matter how we forecast the future, the hard cold fact is "Space" costs too damn much money. Who is going to pay for those Halcyon dreams of "Star Trek" worlds? Not one of my associates can even imagine this world (the US to be specific), getting along much longer with the finite water supply we have. Can't make water... that should be the thrust of our scientists, recovering and new processes for utilizing our finite water supply. There is one community in California that is using recycled waste (sewage) water. Think we can avoid that scenario all over this country?
The greatest cities in the ancient world died for the lack of a potable water supply. I can only guess which of our cities will be the first to die because they could not find or process enough water for their burgeoning citizenry? The future holds more people than even our great producing country can comfortably support. That, plus the marginal water supply was the basis for the movie "Soylent Green."
(Think about having to drink processed waste (sewage) water (a type of "Soylent Green" no?)every day for the rest of your lives).

>If I were to die tomorrow it would be with the knowledge
>that we will return to the Moon, we will go to and
>eventually live on Mars and beyond, and from the new
>knowledge we gain in the process, we will solve the problems
>of Earth. And that belief was what drove the seven
>astronauts who died yesterday.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained" goes the saying. But the reality is someone has to pay for that dream. As the world of space exploration now stands, all we have is the unfinished "Space Station", the ostensible first step to Mars and beyond. And if we don't build new Shuttles, and have to depend on the three we have for all our space explorations, how long will it be before we finish that "stepping stone"? Ever?

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

*One thing struck me as odd: a TV commnetator was ticking off the techniological benefits of space: miniturization of electronic devices, micro-surgery etc.
All those wonders from space have been boiled down to the "wireless generation" of thousands of different cellphones/PDAs/Laptops-etc., most of which are used to trasmit not useful data, but stupid instant messages, or to play games. The "wireless generation" is eviscerating their and their parents budgets because overindulgent parents buy their kids cellphones and the kids immediately run up bills sometimes totaling in the thousands of dollars before the phone company shuts them off.
>It never ceases to amaze me how many experts we have on this
>forum that lack any knowledge at all about a subject under
>discussion. I guess ignorance never stopped anyone from
>having the solution to every problem. At least not in any
>bar I have ever been in.

The original poster asked you to remember for them a certain post you made. The thread then wandered as threads do, to varied topics, one of which I commented on. I know what and from where the name "Soylent Green" sprung. And though it was a movie, it spoke to the future, which is what we all were speaking to. Again you use you position to bully and denigrate. At some time, you too ought to temper your comments.
As to my comment: the original "subject under discussion" was your post the writer asked you about.
"Ignorance" is your comment, itself out of context to the subject at hand.

>
>For your information, Bush is the first president since
>Johnson that has effectively increased NASA's budget. That
>is about the only good thing I can say about W. Clinton
>repeatedly reduced spending on the space program, to the
>point that it probably began impacting flight safety.

An "effectively increased NASA budget" is still a drop in the bucket compared to their real budgetary needs.

>Oh, lest anyone not realize it, there is no soylent green.
>That was fiction. Thankfully, most of us live in the real
>world, but that world has real problems that will not be
>solved by stopgap measures like taking away personal
>freedom, or reassigning the money for the space program.
>Congress is perfectly capable of squandering NASA's entire
>budget in a single session on pork projects.
>
The long term solutions lie in the new knowledge and
>technologies that we can barely imagine today. Where are
>these to come from? Certainly not from folding our tent
>and regressing to past paradigms. The future belongs to
>those people and nations with the will, determination, and
>courage to press forward into new fields of human knowledge.
>
No matter how we forecast the future, the hard cold fact is "Space" costs too damn much money. Who is going to pay for those Halcyon dreams of "Star Trek" worlds? Not one of my associates can even imagine this world (the US to be specific), getting along much longer with the finite water supply we have. Can't make water... that should be the thrust of our scientists, recovering and new processes for utilizing our finite water supply. There is one community in California that is using recycled waste (sewage) water. Think we can avoid that scenario all over this country?
The greatest cities in the ancient world died for the lack of a potable water supply. I can only guess which of our cities will be the first to die because they could not find or process enough water for their burgeoning citizenry? The future holds more people than even our great producing country can comfortably support. That, plus the marginal water supply was the basis for the movie "Soylent Green."
(Think about having to drink processed waste (sewage) water (a type of "Soylent Green" no?)every day for the rest of your lives).

>If I were to die tomorrow it would be with the knowledge
>that we will return to the Moon, we will go to and
>eventually live on Mars and beyond, and from the new
>knowledge we gain in the process, we will solve the problems
>of Earth. And that belief was what drove the seven
>astronauts who died yesterday.

"Nothing ventured, nothing gained" goes the saying. But the reality is someone has to pay for that dream. As the world of space exploration now stands, all we have is the unfinished "Space Station", the ostensible first step to Mars and beyond. And if we don't build new Shuttles, and have to depend on the three we have for all our space explorations, how long will it be before we finish that "stepping stone"? Ever?

Ed
I get it done with YAHOO-DSL!

*One thing struck me as odd: a TV commnetator was ticking off the techniological benefits of space: miniturization of electronic devices, micro-surgery etc.
All those wonders from space have been boiled down to the "wireless generation" of thousands of different cellphones/PDAs/Laptops-etc., most of which are used to trasmit not useful data, but stupid instant messages, or to play games. The "wireless generation" is eviscerating their and their parents budgets because overindulgent parents buy their kids cellphones and the kids immediately run up bills sometimes totaling in the thousands of dollars before the phone company shuts them off.

Mr. Greene, you may have noticed that i have not bothered talking with you in these pages. There is a reason for that, and I have no intention of wasting my time on your inane comments now. Did you think posting that drivel twice strengthened your point?

Shelly

Having a little trouble getting your thoughts out in one go, Ed?

Space will pay for itself many times over. As for water..it's a recyclable resource, we all drink water that has been waste water at some point.

Water is a renewable resource, the water you drink today may very well have been water that was at one time the slobber from a dinosaurs mouth.

Bah.. must ...type.. faster.

I knew I had read that shit some where else! Must…..take ….less……meds!WALDO

Walter A Robertson

>Perhaps birth control is a crucial requirement more than
>ever. Having more than 2 or 3 or 4 children is just not a
>good idea. Of course there are complications because of
>economic, religious, cultural, educational and practical
>considerations. I am not saying there is an easy answer or
>imposing my views. In fact, birth control itself is not
>foolproof.

While that might be a "logical" solution (in that a few generations of "1 child per couple" rule would solve overpopulation), it doesn't take into account basic human rights. I don't want some government telling me that I can't have as many children as I want. Granted, I don't want more than 2, but it should be my choice.

One reason couples in third world countries have so many children is that the mortality rate is so high and they need the extra help to get food. If we help these countries raise their standard of living (and provide birth control methods for voluntary population control) then we might get somewhere. Of course, the voluntary birth control might run afoul of a lot of religions so it's not a fool-proof plan.

>There is no way to prevent accidents in space flight, and
>everyone involved has always known that. The shuttle itself
>was a compromise vehicle. The original plans for the
>shuttle were for a craft that would take off and land under
>its own power utilizing a runway much as a conventional
>aircraft. After the moon program, the Nixon administration
>slashed the funding of NASA, forcing it to either abandon
>manned flight entirely, or find a way to redesign the
>shuttle project within the funding limits available. This
>was the genesis of the spacecraft we are still using today,
>because there was no support in Washington to develop the
>next generation of the shuttle a few years ago. You may
>recall the design award for the Lifting Body that died for
>lack of funding.
>
>The currant shuttle design is the most intricate vehicle
>ever built. It was a brilliant solution at the time, and
>has every possible redundancy to guard against mechanical or
>electrical failure of critical systems. But the public must
>realize that space travel can never be completely safe.
>There will always be accidents. It can be argued that the
>shuttle has already demonstrated itself to be the safest
>means of travel ever devised. It certainly has a better
>safety record than cars, trains, boats, or conventional
>aircraft.
>
>My own feeling is that the space program should be largely
>privatized. The government lacks the incentive or the will
>to proceed to the next stage. Private industry with the
>help initially of government incentives, is more likely to
>continue this nations leadership in space. We are rapidly
>depleting this planet's resources. There are vast stores of
>replacement resources within our reach in the solar system.
>Entrepreneurs will find a way to reach them and profit from
>them. Nearly every significant technological advance in the
>last four decades has come out of the space program. What
>other wonders would we have seen if the program had not beed
>starved for funding?

Either way I think Living on a space station or some other planet or moon will be far too expensive to offer an alternate (to earth) for many.

>Either way I think Living on a space station or some other
>planet or moon will be far too expensive to offer an
>alternate (to earth) for many.


Kind of like being an immigrant to the colonies back in the 16th and 17th centuries.....