Proposed Next-Generation Space Station

WallytheWalrus writes "This NewScientist.com article discusses the proposed next generation of telescopes and space stations. The concept presented with little fanfare by the NASA Exploration Team (NEXT) consists of placing a space station about 5/6ths of the way to the moon at one of a handful of local Lagrangian Points. This station would act as a springboard for constructing new telescopic mirrors, maintaining the telescopes that use them, and as a haven for future manned exploration missions. If only NEXT's budget was more than $4 million a year...."

Comments

Another Star Trek TNG post?

[Slashdotess]

.... well again, that was dissipointing

So...

[failrate]

I thought Steve Jobs liquidated NEXT and went back to Apple.

reposted article...here is the full story

[fat32]

Many people have noted that there has been a reaction to the story posted a few days ago about NASA putting a space-station at Lagrange points. This is good, I guess: Congress should consider carefully how the government licenses engineered systems, because it's an important public policy question: it shouldn't be decided by a backroom push from business lobbyists (Microsoft). There are certain things that bother me about this whole story though, and I'm going to try to trace the trajectory of it below.

As far as I can tell, it started with this Newsforge story. The Newsforge story was excerpted and copied by an Australian newspaper, and from there, it was off and spreading. The headline chosen, "SuSE Linux now has the latest Exchange killer, but this time for Exchange Server", is not particularly accurate, but it did a great job at stirring up outrage.

From there it really started making the rounds. It was repeatedly submitted to Slashdot with all sorts of flaming, incorrect commentary - in fact, after reading a dozen different submissions, I didn't think any of them were even close to accurate. I picked one and posted it, trying to do my best to a) provide an accurate headline and b) provide an accurate summary of the issue at stake in a few sentences. To recap again: when something is available both in Quicktime and DivX, the Federal government gets no copyright whatsoever and the work is true public domain. If you want to copy, reproduce, or sell an .mp3 of Dan Burnett's "Sun Rings", based on detection instruments aboard NASA's Voyagers, Galileo, Cassini spacecraft, go right ahead: there is no copyright on it whatsoever. (Actually, the song itself is still under copyright, but Congress' performance of it wouldn't be...)

However, when the Federal government hires some one at MIT to create code or install Openexchange Server, there is no clear rule regarding the copyright status of the work. Sometimes the contractor keeps the copyright and gets to do a drop-in replacement. Sometimes NASA gets it. Note that this is NOT a BSD-vs.-GPL dispute, not by a long shot. The contracts are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to promote governmental affairs.

Re:Repeat

[Dead Chicken]

Being redundant is when you post something that has alread been said.. When I posted this there were 2 comments.. after I posted it. There was mine and another post also commenting on this being a repeat.. yet I get modded down.. Gotta love /. modders... Thanks guys..

Funny.

[Dexter's Laboratory]

I find it funny that some people can get their submissions accepted and on the frontpage, even if it's a repeat story... while others can't get their stories accepted once.

So who was rejected in favor of this repeat story?

Problem with this

[MickLinux]

I think I can summarize some problems that others have seen, with no real good answer.
More than that, I think I can point out the source of the problems.

As some slashdotters have pointed out, NASA doesn't fulfill its plans.
As others have pointed out, government agencies can't stay on budget.

These problems are inherent with an agency that seizes its assets: nothing is real to them; therefore they get nothing real done.

Well, what about companies? Unfortunately, as yet other slashdotters have pointed out, companies won't see the short-term returns, and therefore won't do this.

Hold on!!! I think we can now see the problem in a better light.

There are tons of companies, some with lots of free assets (like M$), and some with an interest in space (like Gates). Then WHY won't companies invest in this?

Companies look for the short term profits, because the long term profits are by no means guaranteed. More specifically, if they do invest a huge amount for a sudden advancement, they have the following to look forward to: even if they make the long term profits, they care likely to have those long-term profits taken away, either through governmental seizure, or revolution, or theft.

Considering this, one might realize that we are being held back by our own individual and collective lack of character. We steal (in oh so many ways, both as companies and as individuals against companies, and as governmental aid recipients, and as software pirates, and as ebay thieves), and then expect the government to mitigate those losses through .... stealing! Then we expect to make progress, and when those with assets are more concerned about protecting their money from theft, we look to another solution: tax-supported programs (stealing!). Then, when those agencies, devoted to living off theft, turn out to be inefficient, we think that there is another answer?!??

It was for this reason that I did not mind too much to leave aerospace engineering, and become involved in prepublishing technical books. At least that way, I was sure that I wasn't stealing or benefitting from theft. My market is real. But more than that, I started to realize that the answers to the technology problems are not always within technology.

In this case, I would argue that the answers lie in Christian faith. The more -- Christians first -- we start to actually obey those commandments (like, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not steal thy neighbor's wife, thou shalt not want to steal thy neighbor's cow or wife, thou shalt not steal another man's life, etc., etc., etc.,) completely, the sooner we will actually get into space.

Of course, if we start to do that, the nature of our need to get into space changes; doesn't it? Because part of that "thou shalt not steal" also involves such things as taking care of the environment, not committing mass-murder (by either terrorist or government action), having respect for life, and so on.