President Bush has announced his new "Space Initiative."
I've looked at some of the basic numbers and I have never been so sad to be right.
His big plans for going back to the moon include a whoppin 1 Billion dollar increas in Nasa's budget, over the next 5 years.
Meanwhile he wants Nasa to shift 11 Billion of its own budget away from projects they think are worth while and into this project, all guided by an unnamed committee (I believe soon to be filled with Lockeed and Boeing execs).
We are to abandon the International Space Station and go this alone, with the help of allies like Russia, but with the knowledge that this is an AMERICAN project.
We are to scrap our space shuttles, (I joked that I'd be able to pick one up cheap in Nasa's going out of business sale) in favor of an undeveloped unknown mystery craft that will require most of nasa's budget to purchase.
In other words, Nasa's money was going to prove environmental disasters were being caused by big business. THat money will now go directly to big business's like Boeing and Lockheed.
Meanwhile, our allies who helped us with teh space station will have even more reason to love us.
And the bill for all of this will come due long after President Bush is out of office, even if he wins in October.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, I'd be much happier seeing NASA focusing much more on unmanned space flight. It's so much cheaper, safer, and provides greater scientific advancement per dollar spent.
posted
I'd be happy to see more unmanned space exploration because it'd mean I'd have a better chance at a job if I ever get my PhD. Posts: 872 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do need to learn how to live out there. The only way to do that, is to do it.
I am disappointed, as usual, by the meager funds given to such a project when our military spending is so high. Defense spending and Space Exploration should be related items, not opposing.
I hope that they put enough money into it so that no one dies.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd much rather see Bush's business buddies profiteer from this than from unnecesary wars.
Has there been any statement yet as to which NASA programs (besides the shuttle) would get cut to provide funding?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To improve our species' (and other terrestrial species') chances for long term survival. You don't agree?
Absolutely not. There are two possibilities for needing to live on another planet:
1.) The Earth is physically destroyed by some external force.
2.) We (or some other force) screws up the planet and make it difficult to survive on.
In the first case, the likely culprits are an asteroid or comet hitting the earth or the Sun exploding. It’s cheaper to make a defense system to protect us from asteroids and comets than to learn how to terraform entire planets that lack atmosphere, free water, and other necessities of life. If the Sun explodes, the safe planet would be around another star. Given the impracticalities of interstellar flight and the long expected lifespan of the sun, it seems better to spend our resources elsewhere. We have millions of years for normal scientific advancement to help us beat the light speed problem.
In the second case, wouldn’t it be better to devote resources to not screwing up the planet? It would also seem that no matter what we do to the planet, it will be cheaper to fix it than to travel to a faraway planet and utterly change the composition of the surface.
In short, I see it as not cost effective and unlikely to provide tangible benefits. If someone thinks it will be profitable, let them pony up private money to realize the profit.
posted
Dagonee -- personally I'd rather have options to live off the Earth before planet-busting threats come along, not after.
And there have been hard, tangible benefits from space exploration, Bush even mentioned several of them in his speech. I can provide a list if desired. We have benefitted greatly from space exploration.
However, much as I love the dream, I think it's fiscally stupid right now, for the same reasons I thought the war in Iraq was fiscally stupid. I strongly suspect it's an election year distraction and a response to China's recent interest in manned space missions.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, Dagonee, the reason that weeds are so hard to destroy is because, well, they spread like weeds. We need to colonize another planet merely for safety. The worst case scenario, if you will. If a meteor hits earth, that would be catostrophic to our species. But if we were to colonize other planets, a meteor strike would be sad, but the species would survive.
That, and of course, the trip to Mars would take a while and it would be very difficult for us to make the trip right now. And that is just looking around in our solar system. The best thing would be to send out ships to other "quadrants" of the galaxy to explore. Just like on Star Trek. Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know space exploration has had many benefits. But those benefits were obtained either within the moon's orbit or by unmanned flights. And there are still many benefits of that kind to discover.
I don't think that the death of billions of people will be any less tragic if there's a bunch of people living elsewhere.
Just the energy cost of getting materials out of the earth's gravity, accelerating them to a suitable speed, and decelerating them when we arrive at the destination makes it unlikely to be feasible (as opposed to merely possible). You do realize we have to bring almost everything with us, right? There’s no food to count on at the other end nor a means to produce it once we get there.
Again, it’s easier to combat planet-busting threats (except the sun blowing up – that one’s a doozy) than to try to terraform a world.
posted
If people plan to keep on having babies, eventually people will need somewhere to go. And humans like to spread out. It seems a logical next step for the species.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Food can and has been grown in space, which is research that has been done on ISS. Maybe I see things differently, but I see a possible manned mission to Mars akin to settlers moving to the New World, or pioneers moving to the West. Lucrative and very dangerous at first, but then rather profitable to all by the end. Plus, the Earth is cramping my style and I just want to leave. Satyagraha
Posts: 1986 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If people plan to keep on having babies, eventually people will need somewhere to go."
That's it! Bush opposes abortion, condom use and sex education that mentions anything besides abstinence, so he's planning for what to do with the sudden increase in population after his policies go through. Smart man.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I missed it. Thanks everyone for coming up with explainations on why we need to do this.
Here's mine: Man's quest for knowledge. The need to explore and colonize new territory.
And, although Spirit finally got going, an astronaut would have just kicked the balloons out of the way!
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saddam is hiding his weapons of mass destruction on Mars. Duh.
Manned missions are important because they inspire us. How many people are engineers or scientists now in part because they watched the moon landing when they were children? Also, colonizing another world would help us learn sustainable living, since colonies would have to be self-sufficient. The lessons learned from living on the moon or Mars could help us figure out how to use earth's resources wisely.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just the energy cost of getting materials out of the earth's gravity, accelerating them to a suitable speed, and decelerating them when we arrive at the destination makes it unlikely to be feasible (as opposed to merely possible). You do realize we have to bring almost everything with us, right? There’s no food to count on at the other end nor a means to produce it once we get there.
Dagonee, you're absolutely right; it would be prohibitively expensive to launch all the raw materials we'd need out of Earth's gravity well. Luckily, we wouldn't need to do that; the moon has ample resources that could be used for both lunar construction and further space exploration.
Eventually we'll probably want to build a space elevator for bringing goods up from earth or down from space more inexpensively, but we aren't there yet, technologically.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, Noemon. And the first step is always to try it.
Heck, the first settlers in any new territory get wiped out by the harsh conditions. But what they learn in the process allows others to follow. Pretty soon we wonder why it took so long.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm wrong but part of the plan includes completing the International Space Station by 2010. That's a commitment we MUST fulfill.
Upping NASA's budget by $1 billion over the next five years is a good idea, but it's nowhere what we'll need to see to do it right.
Phasing out the space shuttle is something I'll personally cheer about. Why? Well, the space shuttle will be seeing the end of its 30-year longevity in 2010 and we can do much better with newer designs. Also, the success of the shuttle program and the economic success of LEO (low earth orbit) work has killed much of our space exploration. Explorationwise, we're only marginally farther ahead on the tech curve than we were for the Viking expeditions. Sure, we're getting it going again with Mars now, but look at all of the years we've lost. Congress and business put the spotlight on the shuttle and its quick returns on dollars spent, but we looked at the dollars more than the leaps forward we could have made for the whole human race.
Manned missions to the moon and establishment of a permanent Moon base? Yippee!!!!!! What, you mean after the Apollo missions we were supposed to go back to assuming that it was a big hunk of green cheese?
The Moon offers us a better launch pad for deeper space exploration (both of Mars and the rest of the Solar System, both manned and unmanned efforts). It also offers the possibility of mining Hydrogen-3 and building the ultimate clean rooms for high tech manufacturing.
Manned mission to Mars? Yes, we need to do this or the little mud puddle we all call home may be all we ever have.
There's a whole Universe out there to be discovered and explored. And we may be getting back on course.
Of course, we need to take a rocket ship, but all the funding we have is for bus passes and subway tokens.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Much as I would benefit from Bush's plan, there are some major flaws in it.
But before I go there, a question: How much is the war (I'm sorry--it's no longer a war, is it? I heard we won. Now we're just there so that we can repair the damage we did in winning, somehow convince them not to hate us, and select a democratic government for them...) in Iraq costing us on a daily basis? Last thing I remember, Bush was being given $70 Billion (that's an American billion: 10^9) by the Congress for ONE YEAR in Iraq. That's about the TEN YEAR NASA BUDGET he was just talking about.
As long as we understand the priorities.
Back to the moon:
Sure, it's cheaper to launch from the moon. But not if you have to fly all your materials there first. Fabricating spaceships and rocket fuel on the moon? Has anyone given any thought to how complicated it is to build a spaceship here on Earth? Now, think about building a spaceship on McMurdo base in the Antarctic. And extracting the fuel from rocks. The only way building spaceships on the moon makes sense is if you've developed an infrastructure on the moon to process ores, create the metals, extract the hydrogen and oxygen in huge quantities, etc., etc. The costs for your ship keep going up, and up, and up.
And, lest we forget: we would do it all for less than we'll spend on Iraq, Haliburton and Bechtel (combined) in one year.
quote:One of the moon's key resources is its dependable supply of solar energy, said David Criswell, director of the Institute of Space Systems Operations at the University of Houston and the University of Houston-Clear Lake.
True, if you don't mind 14 days on, and 14 days off (again--think--why aren't we doing the same from the North and South Poles?). And how do you get that energy back to earth? Microwaves? That was considered 20 years ago, and rejected (continue reading as to why). Besides, a series of geosynchronous satellites would be far more cost-effective (and have better aim at the microwave energy receivers--think about the possible failure modes of such a system). Also, think about the weapons potential of placing a giant microwave projector on the moon, or in geo-sync. Man, I'd hate to be the next Iraq at that point!
Still, a 17%G environment is better for large-scale assembly than a 0G environment, since you can start to use familiar construction methods again. And the moon would be a great place to set up a long-duration centrifuge to determine acceptable speeds, radii and gravitational levels required for a ONE YEAR TRIP to Mars. Again--think about the physical condition of the US and Soviet astronauts after 6 months to a year or more in 0G. No amount of exercize bicycles or treadmills could make up for the loss in muscle mass and bone loss experienced by these people (even back on Earth, they will never fully recover). Imagine getting to Mars after ONE YEAR in 0G. You wouldn't be able to walk on Mars when you got there, let alone kick away an air bag. And when you got back home, after two years in zero-G...well, no one's ever tried for two years in zero-G; one year's always been more than enough.
Not to mention the radiation. But then, a cementitious slurry of moon rock paste would make an excellent radiation shield, and since you're launching from a 17%G well, a thick shield isn't such a bad idea.
You'll have to forgive me, though, as I have a vested interest in all this:
posted
They other issue with a permanent base on the moon is that it is illegal.
I know, I know, stupid UN laws, not easily enforceable. Except that with China on a big space kick, they could easily use that as an excuse to conduct true space wars. The only rational way around it is to go Ender's Game IF style. Only an international organization can effectively manage it.
Personally, if I were NASA chief I'd:
1) Limit all future shuttle missions to ISS support. Cut back on shuttle missions.
2) Really #1, which is to find a shuttle replacement. Involve groups outside the Big Aerospace contractors. Preferably SSTO (though I am biased toward the old DC Clipper idea), with a quick turnaround on missions, and a MUCH lower logistical cost, particularly manpower to launch and land. The replacement ought to carry up approximately half the tonnage, at as close to 1/10th the shuttle's per pound expense as possible. The replacement can be smaller, because the replacement will be built to have more frequent missions.
3) Continue with the cheaper, streamlined, highly focused unmanned missions... I'd have half a mind to separate the budgets of manned versus unmanned space missions and goals. The only exception would be to continue in perpetuity the Great Laboratories program (Hubble, Chandra, and I forget the other 2 satellites).
4) Work on more exotic lift mechanisms that can substantially lower cost per pound to orbit (space elevator and other ideas).
I think LaGrange Point/Moon/Mars is an eventuality, but if as a solely US mission, I would reccomend only exploratory missions.
quote: Article 9 1. States Parties may establish manned and unmanned stations on the moon. A State Party establishing a station shall use only that area which is required for the needs of the station and shall immediately inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the location and purposes of that station. Subsequently, at annual intervals that State shall likewise inform the Secretary-General whether the station continues in use and whether its purposes have changed.
2. Stations shall be installed in such a manner that they do not impede the free access to all areas of the moon of personnel, vehicles and equipment of other States Parties conducting activities on the moon in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or of article I of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.
Where did you get the idea that an installation on the moon is illegal?
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hesitate to ever again ask someone to modify the title of their thread, but is it possible you mean "too litte"?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka! I was wondering if someone would say something about that.
Steve, congratulations! That's fantastic. I definitely want to read a transcript, if one's available.
I also appreciate your input on this. As a professional in the field, you of course have insights into this that I, as an interested layman, don't.
I have read some encouraging things about possible biotech solutions to the problem of loss of bone mass. I'll see if I can find a link for you. I realize that a biotech solution wouldn't happen tomorrow, but then again, neither would a manned Mars mission; I suspect that, with the proper funding, it will be possible to overcome this problem by the time we'd be ready to launch. What do you think? Is this something you've been following too, or is the biotech angle a direction you haven't been looking?
I'm off to hunt for a link.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no link, but I did find the information. It's in New Scientist vol 180 issue 2423 - 29 November 2003, page 13, in an article entitled "Bear Bones Hint at Treatment for Osteoporosis". Here are some relevant excerpts from the (extremely brief) article:
quote:In humans, rapid bone loss is the inevitable consequence of a lack of physical activity from whatever cause, maybe enforced rest or even space flight. Bone production decreases at such times, while the rate at which bone breaks down increases.
Most hibernating animals are similarly affected, but the black bear (Ursus americanus) is an exception. It appears able to maintain its bone mass throughout its three to five- month hibernation.
....while bone breakdown does increase during hibernation, bone production remains constant and may even peak when the animal becomes active again (The Journal of Experimental Biology, vol 206, p 4233). The two processes appear to balance out in the long term, as preliminary studies by Donahue's team also suggest that the bones of black bears do not become thinner and weaker with age.
Donahue suggests bears have acquired the trait as a way of dealing with waste products, as unlike most hibernating animals they do not urinate or defecate while hibernating. "They don't have a way of getting rid of excess calcium, so the logical place to put it is back into bone," he says.
....Donahue's team is now working out the structural differences between human and bear versions of two hormones, calcitonin and parathyroid hormone, in the hope that this could lead to new therapies for human bone loss.
posted
Hmmm, I guess you're right, but if you read Article 11 in particular, the whole base has to be made and supported from the earth, unless an international "regime" (hey, sounds like the IF!) allows the use of the resources:
quote:The moon is not subject to national appropriation by any claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.
Neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person. The placement of personnel, space vehicles, equipment, facilities, stations and installations on or below the surface of the moon, including structures connected with its surface or subsurface, shall not create a right of ownership over the surface or the subsurface of the moon or any areas thereof. The foregoing provisions are without prejudice to the international regime referred to in paragraph 5 of this article.
...
States Parties to this Agreement hereby undertake to establish an international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the moon as such exploitation is about to become feasible. This provision shall be implemented in accordance with article 18 of this Agreement.
So that's still a HUGE political issue in using the moon as a base of operations for manned solar system exploration.
quote:Previous studies have shown that long-duration exposure to microgravity causes bone loss. In the absence of gravity, bone mass decreases in the load-bearing regions of the skeleton. This space condition mimics osteoporosis, a medical condition characterized by brittle bones. By learning more about the process of bone mineral loss and recovery, researchers hope to be able to implement effective countermeasures in space, and develop more effective treatments for those who suffer from bone disorders on earth.
In the absence of effective countermeasures, crewmembers will lose significant amounts of bone mineral, manifested as a decrease in bone mineral density assessed by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). Bone loss will show significant intra and inter-subject variability. Recovery of bone may take several months or more, and may be incomplete in some individuals. The degree and rate of bone recovery will depend in part on the amount of bone lost during flight, as well as on postflight muscular fitness.
Space flight without appropriate or effective countermeasures will also cause significant loss in muscle mass and strength, similar to losses experienced during horizontal 1-g bed rest. These muscle losses will be manifested as degraded performance or as decrements from preflight strength tests. Readaptation to the 1-g environment will result in rapid recovery of muscle mass and strength. Recovery will be complete by 6 months after return from microgravity
quote:Significant data regarding human response to long-duration exposure to the microgravity environment ("weightlessness") was collected; for example it was discovered that bone loss does not lessen over time.
posted
Oh, yeah, there's no question that the bone loss problem is real; I'm just hopeful that biotech can find a way around it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm feeling better today. I was a bit moody when I posted this and ready to think the worst of what our government plans.
Here are some thoughts that will clarify my views.
1) Moving out into the solar system is a wonderful/dangerous/ and I believe necessary step for mankind in general and for the US in particular. I hope to see us flying to Mars.
2) I am leary of this proposal for many reasons. Bush proposes a $1 Billion increas in Nasa's budget in 10 years, and $13 Billion to go to faith based charities. It shows which of the heavens he is supporting the most.
3) Doublespeak from this administration is deafening in its hypocracy. Everything from "No Child Left Behind" which is leaving schools full of children behind to "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which was an invasion and conquest of Iraq leads me to question any title that comes out of Washington these days.
4) To little or Too Little. Bah. People who have just one way to spell a word, or one "correct" word for any meaning, lack imagination.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and a brief rejoinder to all those discussing Space Elevators in this thread:
What are you, nuts?
The NY Times had an article on this nonsense as recently as September 23, 2003 (I know--it's hanging up on the wall outside my cubicle at work). I've also read the "Popular Science" articles about it. I don't think that Scientific American has stooped to the level where they'll actually report on it (though I am probably wrong).
Problems:
NY Times--The Space elevator is specifically refered to as a "Ribbon ... about 3 feet wide and thinner than a piece of paper" and about 22,300 miles long. Has anyone here ever taken a blade of grass between their thumbs andmade a whistle out of it? This is a very long whistle. Two more concepts: Von Karmen Vortices, and flutter.
Popular Science: I don't have that article in front of me, but it amounted to, "as soon as we can develop the material to make such a plan work, we can start building it." Same goes for transparent aluminum, by the way. In other words, that's an incredibly big "if." We can also move from star-to-star easily, as soon as we develop an appropriate means of transportation.
Either way, even if the elevator column is hundreds of feet wide, it's still tens-of-thousands of miles long! You'll get fluttering instabilities regardless. For the first 50 miles, you'll have to deal with massive and variable wind effects. For the next few hundred miles you'll have to deal with space debris.
On, and for the first few miles, you'll have to deal with terrorists trying to fly planes into it.
And nobody has apparently given any thought as to just how you anchor the damn thing into the Earth.
Here's another pretty picture: the line snaps 12,000 miles up. What happens? I imagine the outer component starts moving towards geo-synchronous orbit, but takes up some god-awful high-energy rotation and winds up in a lower orbit, whipping incessantly and tying itself into knots. The lower section is driven by wind forces at it's base, as well as gravity gradients along its length, and ACTS AS A GIANT BULL-WHIP AS IT WRAPS ITSELF AROUND HALF THE EARTH'S EQUATOR.
I do so wish you people would take some time and think these things through.
--Steve
PS--Don't get me wrong, though; I think that research in these areas is great, and will lead to some wonderful and helpful stuff. But if you're going to paint the big "Space Elevator" picture, you're going to have to look at all the other details as well. You can't just look at the benefits, and ignore the hurdles.
posted
Hm, that's a good point about the bull whip effect if the space elevator snapped. I could have done without the condescension, but I was glad to get the information.
quote:Don't get me wrong, though; I think that research in these areas is great, and will lead to some wonderful and helpful stuff. But if you're going to paint the big "Space Elevator" picture, you're going to have to look at all the other details as well. You can't just look at the benefits, and ignore the hurdles.
Just read your edit. I don't think that many of the people posting about this here are interested in ignoring the hurdles; I know I'm not.
I'm sure that there are hurdles I haven't thought of, and I'm actually glad to have them pointed out. I've thought about the possibility of the cable snapping (and read Kim Stanley Robinson's depiction of such a snap in his Mars trilogy), but the whole bull whip idea...damn. Imagine what kind of energy that thing would deliver. It's staggering. I don't necessarily reject the possibility of the elevator out of hand because of it though; might there be safeties that could be built into the elevator to prevent this from happening? Having explosive charges built into the elevator are regular intervals, which could be rigged to automatically trigger if the cable snapped was the first thing that leapt to mind, but after a moment's consideration I don't know that that's such a wonderful plan, for a variety of fairly obvious reasons.
Still, I don't see hurdles as a reason to quit; you just have to figure out a way to jump over them, go around them, dig beneath them or knock them down. If there are too many, figure out an alternate way to accomplish the goal that doesn't run into so many of them. I don't advocate just saying "gee, that looks tough. I guess we should just give up." though.
posted
Oh, don't get me wrong--passion's great! I want you to be passionate. Just not condescending. Don't get me wrong Steve; I know you and like you, and have a great deal of respect for you. I just didn't like your tone in that post. I thought about letting it go, but it's precisely because I *do* like you that I called you on it.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure Steve; it could have been Green. Erik, you're the resident KSR expert; which book was it in?
Steve, I'm fascinated--why did you get pissed off at him? Were there glaring errors in the science that I didn't pick up on (entirely possible; it's a subject I find interesting, but I'm certainly not an expert).
Thank you for the head's up. I have been getting a tad snarky, lately.
To be honest, I felt that Robinson was being responsible enough in his science not to bring my radar on-line. I didn't like how he treated the protagonist at the end of the novel (well, at the beginning of the novel, too, if you recall).
posted
Sure Steve, no problem. I just went back and reread your post, an honestly it didn't seem as snarky as it did on first reading; it's entirely possible that my perception of it was influenced by low bloodsugar levels (my co-worker was supposed to be brining me a sandwich about an hour ago, an I just gave up and broke open my emergency food supply (ie bag of chips).
It's been too long since I've read the Mars trilogy; I'll have to pick it up again and refresh my memory.
::adds books to list::
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Kathleen Bellamy has asked me for a copy of my submitted paper, so that it can be posted on this site (I would post it on the P-Web site, too, of course). Unfortunately, ASCE has the publication rights to the paper in its current form (and I do not have time to revamp it sufficiently to make it a legitimately different paper). I have asked ASCE for permission to post it, but have not yet received an answer.
--Steve
Maybe Hatrack can carry my Powerpoint presentation, though...but it will probably be over 200MB with all the images and graphics (my updated presentation from Endercon is approaching 300 MB). We shall see.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know folks, I'd like to point out a totally different reason as to why this is a good idea.
China seems to be the biggest power in the world besides us right now. At least it is gearing up to be that.
When we had the USSR, the Space Race was a major part of the Cold War. I think that took a lot of tension out of a very hostile situation in a positive manner. We had the Arms Race as well, but I honestly think it would have been a lot worse if both countries hadn't been devoting lots of time, money, and propoganda to getting in space and getting to the moon first.
The thing about this is that we now celebrate the contributions of both countries in that area. Not only that, the whole world has benefited from the advances in technology gained from the Space Race.
I think a new space race is a much better way to diplomatically compete with China than a new arms race. And whether we make deadlines or not, no matter how far we get, we'll still reap fantastic benifits at home.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Steve, thanks for the information. If ASCE puts the paper online, post a link! Hopefully Hatrack, Sakeriver, GrenME or PWEB will be willing to host the presentation.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
pooka! I was wondering if someone would say something about that.
