From: Charles D Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue May 02 2006 - 14:42:49 MDT
Dani Eder wrote:
>> failed predictions as well as I do -- moon bases,
>> videophones, and so on.
>>
>
> Moon Bases: Speaking as a former rocket scientist,
> I worked on studies of the "next generation"
> replacements
> for the Space Shuttle that NASA is now starting to
> work
> on. I worked on the studies _over 20 years ago_.
> NASA
> is just incredibly slow at getting anything done these
> days. Another example: I started working on the
> Space Station project in 1988, when the development
> contracts were awarded. It's still only half built,
> 18 years later. We could have had Moon Bases if
> a competent organization was in charge. I give it even
> odds that will beat NASA to a Moon base:
> http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/index.htm
> ...
>
> DRN
> ...
NASA is a political animal. It's currently operating as a designed
loser. I don't know why, but this has seemed obvious for decades. It's
not mere happenstance. There are too many concurrent threads to support
that hypothesis. My guess is that the US has decided "We're on top, so
let's not let anything change." The problem is, they can't stop things
from changing. When Britain is mounting a space program that about as
effective as that of the US, you *know* there's a political drag.
Britain is, what, 1/1000th the size of the US, and doesn't have easy
access to bases even *near* the equator. (Canaveral isn't *that* near,
but it's near enough that a territorial base outweighed renting a
foreign one. And Jules Verne thought highly of it. :-)
Now I've overstated the success of Britain...but not by an order of
magnitude.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT