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…
TCS
==============================
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…
===================
Not anymore.
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.
TCS
=====================
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.
TCS
=============================
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!
TCS
===============================
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.
TCS
================================
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.
TCS
==================================
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.
TCS
=================================
Thomas Matula Says: February 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am
Rand,
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.
TCS
================================
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.
TCS====================================
Showing posts with label Space Settlement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Space Settlement. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NSS Comments 10-02-16
First, I appreciate the opportunity that Rand has provided to have this discussion. It’s been floating around in the background of the space community for a long time, and the main reason I put my campaign statement up know was to catalyze that discussion out into the open. My hope is that it is a lively, but respectful, discussion from all sides.
TCS
==================================
But the new policy meets that test much better than the previous one. There was little or no hope that Constellation would have opened up the frontier, even if fully funded. This is something that NSS generally, and Terry specifically, have never really understood.
RS
=================
I’ve never understood it, because it isn’t true. The model is really quite simple: the government pays to develop advanced manned space techniques that make no sense to do commercially. In other words, the program does things faster than private industry could, not because they are better at it (they aren’t) but because they can do it before it makes commercial sense to do so.
And having a specific objective, where it becomes obvious if you slip or slow down and fail, is critical to making sure that actually happens.
TCS
=====================
There is no plausible path from NASA’s “NASA uber alles” policy, in which billions are spent to send a few astronauts to a planet for some vague purpose, and space settlement. But NSS continually (despite occasional refreshing support for private activities) supports whatever NASA wants to do.
RS
=====================
As long as NASA pushes the edges faster than they would be pushed “naturally”, I don’t have any great bias about the right direction. 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.
Despite having seen it live on television, at this point, in practice, we haven’t been to the Moon before.
TCS
============================
Defending NASA’s new plans on both charges was deputy administrator Lori Garver.
“We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said in a luncheon speech at the conference Thursday. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.”
LG
=============================
I respect Lori a great deal, but this is mostly fuzzy. It’s a good thing to do, but it’s not a goal, in the sense of going somewhere.
And, let me be clear about this. If the budget had said:
“We’re going back to the Moon, and we’re hiring Branson and Rutan to get us there,” I’d be perfectly fine with that. In fact, I’d be ecstatic. That would be the best possible result. But it didn’t say that, or anything dimly like that.
And this, perhaps, explains a lot of the difference of opinion. I don’t give a damn about having the government do the development work. In general, I think that’s a bad idea. But I want the government to pay for a real project, to go somewhere, sooner than would be justified by simple commercial requirements.
Doing that would develop technology and capabilities faster than it would be developed naturally. In my judgment, we need to get the species established in space sooner than the natural course of commercial events will cause that to happen. I’m not pushing to have the government develop technology (although I’m content with that, if that’s the only way to get it funded); I’m pushing to have the government pay to fund that accelerated development, and go somewhere.
I’m have no problem having the actual work privatized. In fact, I think that’s the right thing to do.
TCS
================================
Turning to the private sector to launch both cargo and crews to LEO, she continued, actually lowered the risk to the agency in the long run by keeping it from relying on a single system for human access to orbit.
RS/LG
================================
I completely agree with that. That’s a good thing.
But it’s not enough.
TCS
=============================
Does this sound like a policy to “kill the American manned space program”?
RS
=============================
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely. Privatizing LEO work is good to do. It’s the right path for that task. But it’s not enough.
TCS
==============================
If so, I think that Terry owes an explanation of why, to NSS members he expects to vote for him, other than a belief in the Apollo Cargo Cult.
RS
============================
Actually, the fact that I’m running unopposed gives me a little latitude to be even more controversial than usual…
:-)
TCS
TCS
==================================
But the new policy meets that test much better than the previous one. There was little or no hope that Constellation would have opened up the frontier, even if fully funded. This is something that NSS generally, and Terry specifically, have never really understood.
RS
=================
I’ve never understood it, because it isn’t true. The model is really quite simple: the government pays to develop advanced manned space techniques that make no sense to do commercially. In other words, the program does things faster than private industry could, not because they are better at it (they aren’t) but because they can do it before it makes commercial sense to do so.
And having a specific objective, where it becomes obvious if you slip or slow down and fail, is critical to making sure that actually happens.
TCS
=====================
There is no plausible path from NASA’s “NASA uber alles” policy, in which billions are spent to send a few astronauts to a planet for some vague purpose, and space settlement. But NSS continually (despite occasional refreshing support for private activities) supports whatever NASA wants to do.
RS
=====================
As long as NASA pushes the edges faster than they would be pushed “naturally”, I don’t have any great bias about the right direction. 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.
Despite having seen it live on television, at this point, in practice, we haven’t been to the Moon before.
TCS
============================
Defending NASA’s new plans on both charges was deputy administrator Lori Garver.
“We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said in a luncheon speech at the conference Thursday. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.”
LG
=============================
I respect Lori a great deal, but this is mostly fuzzy. It’s a good thing to do, but it’s not a goal, in the sense of going somewhere.
And, let me be clear about this. If the budget had said:
“We’re going back to the Moon, and we’re hiring Branson and Rutan to get us there,” I’d be perfectly fine with that. In fact, I’d be ecstatic. That would be the best possible result. But it didn’t say that, or anything dimly like that.
And this, perhaps, explains a lot of the difference of opinion. I don’t give a damn about having the government do the development work. In general, I think that’s a bad idea. But I want the government to pay for a real project, to go somewhere, sooner than would be justified by simple commercial requirements.
Doing that would develop technology and capabilities faster than it would be developed naturally. In my judgment, we need to get the species established in space sooner than the natural course of commercial events will cause that to happen. I’m not pushing to have the government develop technology (although I’m content with that, if that’s the only way to get it funded); I’m pushing to have the government pay to fund that accelerated development, and go somewhere.
I’m have no problem having the actual work privatized. In fact, I think that’s the right thing to do.
TCS
================================
Turning to the private sector to launch both cargo and crews to LEO, she continued, actually lowered the risk to the agency in the long run by keeping it from relying on a single system for human access to orbit.
RS/LG
================================
I completely agree with that. That’s a good thing.
But it’s not enough.
TCS
=============================
Does this sound like a policy to “kill the American manned space program”?
RS
=============================
In the sense of “Boldly Going Where No One Has Gone Before,” absolutely. Absolutely. Privatizing LEO work is good to do. It’s the right path for that task. But it’s not enough.
TCS
==============================
If so, I think that Terry owes an explanation of why, to NSS members he expects to vote for him, other than a belief in the Apollo Cargo Cult.
RS
============================
Actually, the fact that I’m running unopposed gives me a little latitude to be even more controversial than usual…
:-)
TCS
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
NSS Board Campaign Statement
Today, I am asking for your support for my election to the NSS Board of Directors.
I have read the NSS strategic plan in detail. It includes many useful and worthwhile tasks, but it is missing one important element: focus. We need to decide much more explicitly what we’re going to support, and what we’re going to reject.
Like any entity, NSS has limited resources, and the rules of “opportunity cost” apply. Any resources we invest in one activity, are not available for other activities. From my personal perspective, there is only one mission for the society that really matters: minimizing the time from this moment to the creation of thriving human communities in space. Space settlement. Space industrialization is essential to that result, as are many other supporting activities, but at the end of the day, space settlement is the bottom line. All activities should be tested against how well they support that core objective.
The problem isn’t primarily technological. Humanity is capable, right now, of creating self-sustaining human settlements in space. We simply choose not to do so.
On this note, I’ll say explicitly that the Obama proposal for NASA is a barely mitigated disaster. It has some good elements, like the emphasis on private sector development, but it has no clear focus of ANY KIND for the American manned space program. As a practical matter, Obama is proposing to kill the American manned space program. I think that’s wrong for the country, and I don’t like it.
You’ll find that I fairly consistently don’t play the PC game that says, “I’m OK, you’re OK, all views are good.” We need to make CHOICES about what we, as a society, are going to support, and reject. If I reject some viewpoint, you’ll know it.
NSS needs to focus on changing the pattern of resource allocation on the planet in the direction of creating space settlements, which necessarily means spending less on other things. We need to speak more directly. We need less nuance, and more simple, declarative statements.
What was that line at the end of the “Patton” speech? I don’t want to run afoul of the censors, but now you know how I feel!
I look forward to working with many of you to advance the production of independent human space settlements!
I have read the NSS strategic plan in detail. It includes many useful and worthwhile tasks, but it is missing one important element: focus. We need to decide much more explicitly what we’re going to support, and what we’re going to reject.
Like any entity, NSS has limited resources, and the rules of “opportunity cost” apply. Any resources we invest in one activity, are not available for other activities. From my personal perspective, there is only one mission for the society that really matters: minimizing the time from this moment to the creation of thriving human communities in space. Space settlement. Space industrialization is essential to that result, as are many other supporting activities, but at the end of the day, space settlement is the bottom line. All activities should be tested against how well they support that core objective.
The problem isn’t primarily technological. Humanity is capable, right now, of creating self-sustaining human settlements in space. We simply choose not to do so.
On this note, I’ll say explicitly that the Obama proposal for NASA is a barely mitigated disaster. It has some good elements, like the emphasis on private sector development, but it has no clear focus of ANY KIND for the American manned space program. As a practical matter, Obama is proposing to kill the American manned space program. I think that’s wrong for the country, and I don’t like it.
You’ll find that I fairly consistently don’t play the PC game that says, “I’m OK, you’re OK, all views are good.” We need to make CHOICES about what we, as a society, are going to support, and reject. If I reject some viewpoint, you’ll know it.
NSS needs to focus on changing the pattern of resource allocation on the planet in the direction of creating space settlements, which necessarily means spending less on other things. We need to speak more directly. We need less nuance, and more simple, declarative statements.
What was that line at the end of the “Patton” speech? I don’t want to run afoul of the censors, but now you know how I feel!
I look forward to working with many of you to advance the production of independent human space settlements!
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Check this out!
Check out the site, "Transterrestrial Musings", by Rand Simberg. I've known Rand for over 3 decades, and he's both smart and entertaining. But, beware! His site is not for the faint of heart. He doesn't suffer fools lightly, he calls it like he sees it, and points to things that most others miss.
In other words, my kind of guy!
:-)
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
TCS
In other words, my kind of guy!
:-)
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
TCS
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Space Colonies -- Time to Reboot!
My interest in space was formed in a very different time than we are living in today. We were in the middle of the Cold War then, and while I was in high school, we landed men on the moon for the first time in human history. The pace of space development with the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs was simply stunning. Every flight---sometimes twice in a month!---we did something new, something that had never been done before. It seemed like anything was possible!
Politically, the best way to describe me is a “recovering Libertarian”. I’ve always believed in freedom, and minimum government, with the exception of robust national defense. I’ve run for office, I’ve run a state political party, and I’ve run a government agency (Nevada Department of Information Technology). When I was very young, I wanted to “save the world”. Didn’t we all? When I determined that to be impossible (too much inertia relative to my meager power), I decided the best thing to do was to start a new community in space, with a much stronger, more explicit freedom orientation than even the United States Constitution provides.
When I first started looking at the technical issues involved in space travel, the problem struck me as daunting. Still, with the obvious progress being made in the race to the moon, it seemed like an achievable objective. I joined the L5 Society (later NSS) and started OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement) for the purpose of getting the resources allocated to build a space colony.
But, even as I was ramping up my efforts, the darkness was starting to descend. Popular interest in space plunged, and the final lunar missions were cancelled. Politically, we became obsessed with picking lint out of our collective navel. There was great enthusiasm in the private sector, and many companies were formed that would be able to deliver space services at a fraction of the cost of NASA, in just a few years. Well, maybe just a few more years. OK, maybe, at least, in a decade or so.
And gradually, in terms of visible results, nothing happened. At least, nothing visible to an unrepentant colonist, who was only peripherally interested in the technical details. I lost my faith, and turned my attention to other things. And so things remained, for many years.
Then, finally, Rutan et al won the X-Prize! Something had actually happened! A long way from private access to orbit, to be sure, and there’s still no clear path to space colonies, but at least the “So What?” meter has finally come off the peg. A glimmer of hope!
And at the same time, the need for space colonies has become resurgent, in seemingly just a few years. The march toward socialism in the United States seems unstoppable, and the delusional Warmists are on the verge of retarding the growth in standard of living worldwide, to no good purpose. The two, or course, are not unrelated.
So, there’s a glimmer of hope, and an increasingly urgent need, but what’s to be done about it? Rich folks have many ways to make a difference. They can fly in space themselves, they can invest in private space ventures, and they can use the considerable opportunities available for those with means to increase government support for space development and exploration. But what can an average guy do? Just an unrepentant colonist, say?
I don’t have the specific answer, but I know what the key is. For sure, the key is not education. It’s not even information. And it is most certainly not in technical analysis.
The key is entertainment! For better or ill, we now live in the United States of Entertainment, and any solution for making a major change is going to be primarily based in that domain. That hasn’t always been true, and won’t be true forever. But it is now, and will be into the foreseeable future.
I’ve always understood this on a personal level, in my interactions with people, and in my presentations, both of which are generally successfully entertaining. It’s only recently become apparent to me, though, that if I’m going to make a difference in the world, I need to enter, and come to understand, that murky world, where reason and analysis play a decidedly secondary role.
It should be an interesting adventure!
TCS
Terry C Savage
Science Fiction Author
The End of Winter
http://tinyurl.com/end-of-winter-savage
http://tcsendofwinter.blogspot.com/
Politically, the best way to describe me is a “recovering Libertarian”. I’ve always believed in freedom, and minimum government, with the exception of robust national defense. I’ve run for office, I’ve run a state political party, and I’ve run a government agency (Nevada Department of Information Technology). When I was very young, I wanted to “save the world”. Didn’t we all? When I determined that to be impossible (too much inertia relative to my meager power), I decided the best thing to do was to start a new community in space, with a much stronger, more explicit freedom orientation than even the United States Constitution provides.
When I first started looking at the technical issues involved in space travel, the problem struck me as daunting. Still, with the obvious progress being made in the race to the moon, it seemed like an achievable objective. I joined the L5 Society (later NSS) and started OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and Settlement) for the purpose of getting the resources allocated to build a space colony.
But, even as I was ramping up my efforts, the darkness was starting to descend. Popular interest in space plunged, and the final lunar missions were cancelled. Politically, we became obsessed with picking lint out of our collective navel. There was great enthusiasm in the private sector, and many companies were formed that would be able to deliver space services at a fraction of the cost of NASA, in just a few years. Well, maybe just a few more years. OK, maybe, at least, in a decade or so.
And gradually, in terms of visible results, nothing happened. At least, nothing visible to an unrepentant colonist, who was only peripherally interested in the technical details. I lost my faith, and turned my attention to other things. And so things remained, for many years.
Then, finally, Rutan et al won the X-Prize! Something had actually happened! A long way from private access to orbit, to be sure, and there’s still no clear path to space colonies, but at least the “So What?” meter has finally come off the peg. A glimmer of hope!
And at the same time, the need for space colonies has become resurgent, in seemingly just a few years. The march toward socialism in the United States seems unstoppable, and the delusional Warmists are on the verge of retarding the growth in standard of living worldwide, to no good purpose. The two, or course, are not unrelated.
So, there’s a glimmer of hope, and an increasingly urgent need, but what’s to be done about it? Rich folks have many ways to make a difference. They can fly in space themselves, they can invest in private space ventures, and they can use the considerable opportunities available for those with means to increase government support for space development and exploration. But what can an average guy do? Just an unrepentant colonist, say?
I don’t have the specific answer, but I know what the key is. For sure, the key is not education. It’s not even information. And it is most certainly not in technical analysis.
The key is entertainment! For better or ill, we now live in the United States of Entertainment, and any solution for making a major change is going to be primarily based in that domain. That hasn’t always been true, and won’t be true forever. But it is now, and will be into the foreseeable future.
I’ve always understood this on a personal level, in my interactions with people, and in my presentations, both of which are generally successfully entertaining. It’s only recently become apparent to me, though, that if I’m going to make a difference in the world, I need to enter, and come to understand, that murky world, where reason and analysis play a decidedly secondary role.
It should be an interesting adventure!
TCS
Terry C Savage
Science Fiction Author
The End of Winter
http://tinyurl.com/end-of-winter-savage
http://tcsendofwinter.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
