Re: starship-design: Earth's Groundhog Days Continue Thirty Years Later

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/19/02 10:25:41 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>What We're Doing Doesn't Work: If our goal is to build a permanent,
>
>sustainable human presence in space, we have to begin by acknowledging
>
>failure. We're not there; we don't have the "2001: A Space Odyssey" future.
>
>
>
>The observation is obvious, but much of the space community has failed
>to
>
>draw the logical conclusion: the methods we've been using to achieve our
>
>goals have failed.

Or, the goal itself is a dude?  We never settled America to settle America.  
We settled it to make money or such.  Thats not what advocates focus on.




===
>A space-enthusiast effort focused on government-agency boosterism has
>
>failed. Entrepreneurial efforts ungrounded in incrementalism and ruthless
>
>financial realism have failed. 


Bingo.

>"Space is cool" educational programs have
>
>failed. Success will require not just new approaches but an end to wasting
>
>efforts on the old ones. You can't dig your way out of a hole.

Bingo





>The primary work product of NASA and Big Aerospace is "viewgraph
>
>engineering:" ferociously expensive studies that generate beautiful artwork
>
>of cool spaceships - and nothing else. Nobody other than newcomers believes
>
>any of the stuff will ever be built.

NASA's job is spectacal and good press.





>The cynicism behind such efforts, verging on corruption where public funds
>
>are involved, is corrosive to the credibility of the entire space
>
>enterprise. The same holds true with much of the outreach focused on
>
>schoolchildren: that captive audience has a fine nose for adult
>
>speciousness, and they're not buying outer-space gee-whiz: they can see
>the
>
>level of interest and attention paid to space by their parents and the
>
>media, and can see for themselves that the humans-in-space effort in
>
>particular is ghastly dull.

Yup.  They know its BS PR.  Space was a dead frounteer long before they were 
born, and they know it.




====
>Bureaucracies Aren't Bold: Another lesson that should be obvious, this
>one
>
>has escaped government space supporters and critics alike. Governmental
>
>efforts can't afford to fail, but they can afford not to succeed.

Now your thinking like NASA.  

The prime directive is to never do anything that looks bad!





=====
>What would be useful? Efforts increasing interconnectedness and
>
>communications: commercial suborbital vehicles fit that bill. A counter
>to
>
>fears of terrorism, more than to its actuality - which is why ballistic
>
>missile defense remains a priority.

None of these ae, or should be, relaed to NASA.




>So long as SUV sales continue to increase, our society remains unwilling
>to
>
>confront the consequences of its demands for energy and raw materials,
>and
>
>unwilling to perceive any need for change. Once it does, expansion of our
>
>material resource base may become useful quite soon, enabling solar power
>
>satellites and asteroid mining.

This is a myth.  Oil will last far far longerthen we will neede it to, and 
Earth is to rich in or to need asteroid matierial.  The refined materials 
cost less  per pounnd then any near term shiping costs of anything back from 
the asteroids.





>We Need Skills: We really do have things to learn before we can live and
>
>work in space and expand outward through the solar system. By focusing
>on
>
>endless human microgravity studies - and ignoring Russian data in the
>
>field - NASA has squandered opportunities to grow and learn during its
>long
>
>Groundhog Day.

The data showsthat you do not want to keep folks in lkow to zero G.  I.E. big 
wheeled statinos or not.  Whicjh does lesve anything for NASA to study -- and 
they live for endless studies!


======
>The discipline to abandon his grandiose bluster in favor of daily
>
>incremental progress was one of the keys to his release. It is ours as
>well.
>
>A new generation of rocket entrepreneurs is starting small, building,
>
>testing and flying hardware in steady development.

Now your back in the NASA game.  We don't need to study this stuff.  Firms 
will do that for you IF YOU SUPPY A MARKET TO BUY THEM!!!

The Rocket entrepreneurs are kiding themselves.  TRying to start a aitline, 
by trying to backyard tinker a airliner - is a waste of time.  The areo 
companies know how to make cost effective, relyable, aero space craft -- and 
investors will trust their gear a lot more then one you make.  The areo 
companies just don't know how to run a air/space line profoitably.  THATS 
what the rocket entrepreneurs need to focus on and solve.  Problem is they 
are frustrated engineers who really would rather develop space craft.

;)



Kelly