Thomas Matula Says:
I tell you this is truly historical. I never thought I would see Rush Limbaugh and organized labor on the same team… I guess President Obama really has a magical way of bringing people together from all walks of life
When you add me to that coalition, it gets even stranger still. How many of you have run an anti-government political party at the state level? I also ran a state Cabinet agency for seven years, but that’s another story…
This is shaping up to be an interesting battle in Congress. Especially with Democrats like Senator Bayh threatening to split the party in the next presidential election…
He’s said no way, no how, is he going to run in 2012. Too bad, really. If he did, it would be the first time I’ve considered voting for a Dem Prez candidate in many decades.
Edward Wright Says:
For example, I’ve never had an interest in the Moon/Mars debate, because the purpose is to go somewhere, and do something, that we haven’t done before. Faster than can be justified on a commercial basis. And that’s the key.
It doesn’t matter where NASA astronauts go, or how, or why — as long as the trip can’t be justified on a commercial basis?
Basically, yes. I want the government to push the limits, preferably far beyond what would happen naturally. Having some destination matters, to focus the development efforts. I’m less concerned with the specific destination selection, although the Moon seems like the obvious choice to me.
Does that make sense to you, Terry? There’s no commercial justification for flying T-38s from Texas to Wyoming just to pick up burgers and fries — does that mean astronauts should fly their T-38s from Texas to Wyoming to pick up burgers and fries?
Silliness, unrelated to what I’m saying. There’s no new technology development that results from your suggestion. Although…if they want me to fly one of the T-38s, I’ll support the proposal in a heartbeat!
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely.
Do you think no one has gone to the Moon before?
The flexible path to the asteroids, the LaGrange points, the moons of Mars, etc. seems to fit that definition much better.
All that’s fine. As long as there’s a specific destination and a timeline, and most importantly, funding, I’m pretty flexible on the destination itself. I just think the Moon would be the easiest sell.
Rand Simberg Says: February 16th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
Terry (ignoring the other multitudinous issues with your response), we’re still awaiting an explanation as to why increasing the number of ways to get people to orbit, at lower cost per person, is “killing the American manned space program.”
You’re not waiting; you just missed it. What you describe is a good thing, and I said so. What’s bad (terrible, in fact), is the absence of a funded destination. That is what’s killing the American manned space program.
What you seem to have missed is that flushing Constellation/Ares doesn’t bother me excessively. What bothers me is flushing the return to the Moon mission. I’d prefer to have private industry do it, as long as the mission is funded, with completion dates.
It’s not. And that’s my objection.
Fletcher Christian Says: February 17th, 2010 at 4:18 am
The aim is get a reasonable number of humans (in the thousands, minimum) off this mudball, right? Incidentally, there is undoubtedly a critical number of humans in space that will solve the rest of the problem of space colonisation with no further input from Earth.
If we can get 50 people, that will be good enough. Not from a gene pool perspective, perhaps, but if we get that far, we’ll keep going.
Thomas Matula Says: February 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am
The reference to popcorn above was to watching the Democrats split and President Obama having to run against one or more strong Democratic candidates in the presidential primary. Its what happens when Presidents try to rule rather then govern.
Obama is toast. He has chosen the Carter path, rather than the Clinton path.
Edward Wright Says: February 17th, 2010 at 10:12 am
If there was a killer space rock headed for our planet the best scenario to save the maximum amount of humanity would still be on this planet, not in space. A nuclear-powered submarine underwater would be much cheaper and able to save more of humanity
I know I’m going to regret asking this, but how do you think a nuclear submarine would stop a killer space rock?
In the short term, from a species survival standpoint, the purpose of a space colony is to make sure we survive at all. It won’t take many people to do that. But then, species survival is only one of many reasons. The cultural reasons are far more compelling.