Slashdot Mirror
How the West Wasn't Won
Nigel Assbackwards writes "Finally, after years of being furtively passed between trusted friends, the legendary NASA satire "How the West Wasn't Won" is available at spacefuture.
And Oh!, if only all space agencies were as loud and as totally ace as WideGroup's MirCorp intro."
I wasn't reall interested in space tourism before, but I sure as hell am now.
-Skeld
the metaphor falls short with the fact that you cannot send people to harvest the Moon, even if there was an easy way to transport them. ...unless you terraform the Moon and then build a spaceship out of wood pulled by flying animals.
Then you'd have to watch out for titatium-alloy-arrow-throwing Aliun'.
The ENIAC Demo Competition
The writer of the story clearly believed that space flight was a 'mature' technology assuming that commercial organisations could easily fill the void should NASA, ESA et al be disbanded.
To an extent, I agree. But government funded organisations be they NASA, JPL or the universities will always be the primary instigators of new technological achievements.
There is another story about a man name Christopher Columbus (you may have heard of him) who tried to mount similar but purely commercial venture. Unfortunately he failed to acquire enough commercial funds and had to resort to government funding also.
The pressure of 'always turning a profit' will confine companies such as Mir-Corp to feeding off of pure research's achievements. I suspect I am not the only one to see that in such an environment the 'giant leaps' (such as moon landings), are unlikely to occur with out a 'NAFA'. Instead progress will continue at a crawl.
But I suppose 'NAFA' money could always be spent on loftier goals, such as invading another country.
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
I quote, from my original post, The article criticises 'the government-started monopoly' due to the fact such an organisation wants to keep itself alive and thus will never get the job done. I understood that. I even agree with it, in most cases. However, spaceflight is rather more difficult than just being innovative; with the exception of true high-tech, we need a brute-force approach to even get into space. There isn't much you can do to brute-force. Better propellants, nuclear propulsion, are possibilities, but difficult ones. And think back... when you look at informative websites on such topics, haven't most of them been at nasa.gov?
:) But it also allowed more specialisation - such as thinkers and priests. Researchers. Innovators. Although yes, later change was resisted because great changes in technology tend to lead to great changes in society, and thus affect the ruling order.
Then there are the alternative methods to spaceflight; either totally different propulsion methods or antigrav, which while they would fall under the heading of innovative also fall under the heading of 'not yet'. Then there's different techniques of launching. Railguns and such are possible, but not practical due to the massive cost. Skyhooks and beanstalks equally so, as well as being very limited by technology. But despite the problems, they still work on these things as well. NASA isn't just the rocket-launcher; it's also the researcher. Legislated monopoly, possibly; but not because of anti-competitive practices, just because they're the only real thing around.
The point I'm trying to make is that the 'essay' (not sure if it deserves that, but I just don't like the style) neglects what innovation NASA does. It's not just the failure to get to the stars - it's also success in trying to get to the stars, whether it's in contained habitation, new materials, or trying to work with new technologies. In many ways NASA would be a lot bigger if it was actually succeeding - if there was a base on mars, would NASA get less funding? If they're a successful space department, do they get junked because the colonists are building their own? I'd say that an established launch site would do rather well out of it.
As for the excellent Guns, Germs and Steel (by Jared Diamond - everybody, go buy, it's *good*), I took it more as a theory on how human society was shaped by its environemt. In fact, I seem to remember that early on it focusses on settling in one place - an innovation - actually allows a power structure
So if you're arguing against monopolies, I'm with you. If you see NASA as a monopoly just cos it's the only thing out there, I'm afraid I respectfully disagree; NASA will try to help you, and won't be anti-competitive (see armadilloaerospace.com and when they refer to NASA - it's usually citing them as a reference, and sometimes going ooh because someone from NASA visited them).
They're trying, space is just a little hard. Kudos to smaller efforts - but when they spring a leak and die out there, it'll only lead to people urging more caution, more safety, and they'll up up at roughly the same stage as NASA. NASA's noly problem is that they're also hampered by a lot of red tape and beurocracy due to being governemt-run... but then which large company doing something physical isn't...
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggie" whilst looking for a rock
The cost of space stuff should concern you, because as a taxpayer you're paying for it. It's not as much money as the military, but the article is trying to say we could get more capable technology for our buck.
Check this out. It basically is an example of a low-cost commercial launch system company going under as a result having to compete with NASA.
I don't know if the company in the link would have actually made a working system, but the link makes the point that private sector space tech would not even be able to get investment capital, because of the uncertainties created from having to compete with NASA-subsidized projects which do not need to make a profit.
OTOH, NASA contractors compete with each other to win the contracts, so it's not really a monopoly. Then again, the project requirements often dictate the complexity and (in)efficiency in $$$. So really, to fixing the "problem" is more a manner of tweaking the way money is counted, rather then eliminating NASA.
SUV's support terrorism !
And its name is... America...
For those who don't know, North America was pretty well known to Europe before Colombo set foot there. I'll try up some of the data I knew a few years ago.
Well there are lot of stories floating around that America was known to other people before the XIth Century. There are some strange facts about architecture and customs that suggest that African/Mediterranean peoples were in contact with America in a very far past (>3000 years ago). There were some suggestions that Phoenicians and Romans knew soemthing laid in the west of the Atlantic. We had stories about legends from people now living in modern West Africa. We had the famous Irish monks. However the historical mist is pretty thick here. So we just ignore these things for now.
In the XIth century we have the first, 100% data that Europeans reached America. As many of you know, they were the Vikings. Classical History claims that this discovery was lost. Wrong, at least until the XIIIth century, many bigheads in Europe knew about this. However something happened during that time and this data was forgetten for nearly 100 years till Templars/Portuguese reached modern Boston somwhere in 1450s. There is a fact that confirms this, some "signed" rock, which its copies lays now in Lisbon. Note that Portuguese had such a tradition - apart of putting pilars in the seashore, they marked rocks to mention their presence to future expeditions. But that was not all. From that time and until the end of the 1480s Portuguese made several expeditions to North America, and probably sailed over the South. And according to certain stories, they did this taking together dannish and french (why ???) sailors. Besides there is a story that Portuguese possessed maps made in the XIIth century that clearly showed Labrador and regions down to modern New-York. Btw, it was in the middle of the XVth Century that portuguese got used to fish Codfish. Codfish does not live in Portuguese hotter waters. To catch it up, one has to get near Canada. Unfortunately, with the exception of two expeditions, every document concerning these travels probably was destryed during Inquisition times and Lisbon's Earthquake in 1755.
But this story is not the main thing. As you see, I speak about the Inquisition. Why? Because one of the main oppositors to all this was no one else than Roman Church. Fantasy? Absolutely not. Several years ago I got into my hands the story of a french archeologist that made a fantastic discovery. He studied the social-economical situation of Europe during the middle of Middle Ages. In one of his studies he met with people who talked about some wierd documents on Greenland dated to the XIIIth century. These documents were several bureaucratic papers concerning the relation between Greenland people and the Dannish Episcope. It occurs that somewhere after to colonization of Greenland, these lands were offered to the Church. The Dannish Episcopate, as representative of the Pope, ruled in fact these lands.On the papers it seems that there are references to the fact that Greenlanders knew about the existence of other lands in the West. However, somewhere in the middle of the XIIIth century, step-by-step contacts with Greenland started to fade. It is curious to mention that in some point of History, only Church boats had the right to sail to these lands. However in the XIIIth Century, contacts were reduced to only one sail a year. In the end the boat caught fire and no one replaced it. What happened to the remaining Greenlanders remains a mistery.
Frankly this story made me think A LOT. Right now, I don't remeber the name of the french archeologist. But I remember that this was once considered one of the biggest authorities in Middle Ages History. The fact that the Church didn't only knew but OWNED lands that later were considered pure fantasies, rises lots of questions about how and when America was in fact discovered. During the Middle Ages, people had lost of other problems rather to care about something that eroded all foundations of knowledge of those times. However, the Church was The European Center of Knowledge, and even in the most darkest times, they cared to be informed. The fact that they were so near of America, and restricted contacts with Greenland, suggests that they knew about it.
There is also one factor to add up to this story. Portuguese expeditions were directed from a center in South Europe. This center was known as Sagres, but the name of a village that lays nearby. There were stories that this center was a big building laying not far away from the sea. However, since the XVIth century, references to this building disappeared altogether. Today, in the supposed place where this center existed, there is NO OBJECT that would remind of its existence. Until the somehwere in the 1980s... Sagres is a good place for those who fly small motor planes, its windy like Hell. and one pilot noted drawings in the surface. Archeologists came in and discovered the biggest mistery of Portugal's History. The building was completely removed from that place, down to the foundations. A huge Rose of the Winds that layed nearby and was surely made of rocks, could only be seen from the air for the holes on the ground. All the Sagres center was completely wiped up. By who? Archeologists thought that nearby villagers may have used the rock for their houses. However in Sagres there are no clear signs that houses may carry those rocks. Besides some cannot understand why villagers would be so systematic to clean the place completely.
There is one interesting conspiration theory about this. One guy suggested that this was a last attempt to forget America and everything else. However it was too late. Europe went crazy about India. Spanish were making fortunes out of the stolen american gold. English, French and Dutch were already reaching America. the Church lost the battle...
but don't you think that the main reason because national governments do not want commercial enterprises to own/operate rockets that can reach orbit is concerns of 'national/global security'?
I bet that every satellite put in orbit right now, is thoroughly scrutinized by the various nations' secret services, and I also bet that satellites that would have 'too sensitive' capabilites would be 'rejected' unless appropriate agreements are made with the satellite's owner/operator.
After all, if I was company X interested in mapping/data acquisition at resolutions much higher than currently offered (say, 1 foot resolution images at different wavelengths etc.) I doubt I would be allowed to launch such a satellite without signing some papers saying that I won't photograph 'sensitive' areas, or that I won't give that info to 'bad people'.
If there was a 'free market', and I was a country that the US wouldn't like to have satellite sensing capabilities, there wouldn't be much they could do to stop me from using, hypotetically, my petroldollars to buy it.
I could also, extremely hypotetically of course, make a bogus communication satellite, which is really a nuke or bio weapon, and get this commercial company to put it in orbit, and from there I can just make it drop anywhere in the world.
While I do believe that there should be commercial competition to lower prices and so on, I really don't think it will be allowed to happen: only state-based space agencies will be allowed to have launch capabilities, and because of the deterrence factor, they will make very sure that the above rogue scenarios won't happen.
-- the cake is a lie
While I agree with the spirit of this farce I have to question the assumption that cheaper ways have been squashed. Granted NAFA... erra NASA budgeting is inflated well over what minimal launch costs. However even an expendable system along the lines of the old Sat V would still be pretty expensive, even if we had kept the assembly sequence rolling.But it would be doubly so now that the tooling for that beast is no more and would have to be recreated.
space needs a kick in the pants from one of the two following and I don't care if it comes via the private entrepanuer or NAFA.
1) We find some incredible new technology or resource that can only be found/created in microgravity and the capital investment returns far exceed the cost... ie a good space buisness venture. Space tourisim is a non starter at its current costs.. even at a 10th the current costs. Do the math.Shuttle launch 400 million/10 makes 40 million. call it two pilots and 8 passengers. 8 passengers to defray 40 million ? a novelty enterprise at best. even if you convert the payload to acomodate max passengers up to say 40 you still have a million per ticket just to meet expenses. Again its a novelty enterprise with no long term future. Get it down to 10k a ticket and a system that can be operated for less than the total ticket cost for a full load and can handle enough flights to pay for itself and make a profit and you start cookin with gas. However Chemical bi-propellant systems just are not that capable.
2) We build a better mouse trap and find a better way than chemicle bi-propellant launch vehicles. Perhaps a more efficient chemcial system or perhaps a new means of generating thrust.
I am just hoping the X-prize contestants are succesfull, but I think the break through there will be when they manage orbital flights, or perhaps sub orbital ballistic hops to distant locations. I think the market for 0 G joyriding is somewhat limited long term, but the ability to get from say california to australia, or similar hops, in less than an hour has a serious commercial market. After all if we could launch multiple nukes to distant lands in 30 minutes... why not people ? Its a small step indeed from something that can do that to something that can make LEO, not much more for TLI to LLO, and not much more for a TMI to a LMO. After all 99% of the problem is getting out of the atmosphere. Once your up there, going elsewhere or comming back takes only a fraction of the Delta V.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
As a result, all space vehicles are mostly fuel tank. They all have dinky payloads for their size. They just barely work. They're all weight-reduced to the edge of what's possible, far beyond the weight reduction efforts in commercial aircraft. As vehicles, they suck.
Only some non-chemical propulsion method can possibly get us out of this mess. Orion might have worked. Laser launch is a possibility. Antimatter propulsion is a ways off, but possible. Open-cycle nuclear engines have been built successfully, but they make a huge mess.
Incidentally, the "cheap, dumb booster" is a myth. Most of the cost comes from making boosters light. It's easy to make a cheap, heavy booster, but it will barely get off the ground.
It's impressive that this really is new on the Web -- do a search on Google for 'Waggonauts' and you get zip. Do a search for the alternative spelling 'Wagonauts' and you still get zip. How long exactly has this been "passed between trusted friends"? Years? Information may want to be free... but sometimes it's slow to make up its mind ;-)
The monopoly immediately develops its own objectives, the FIRST one being survival, so it NEVER FINISHES ITS TASK, which becomes more and more complex and expensive.
They're talking about government monopolies and organizations, but it's important to remember that this applies to any organization - government bureau or private corporation. Witness the RIAA/MPAA members trying to save their aging business models. That's only one example off the top of my head that gets discussed here a lot.
All groups of people who get together to do something recognize that what they are doing is their way of life, their means of existence, and they are afraid of losing that, so they try to protect it at all costs. How willing would you be to give up your paycheck if it seemed your organization was obsolete or useless?
Well, I'd be willing, but most people don't seem to be so willing. I think this is harder for organizations that aren't democratically structured... The few people at the top will do what they can to protect their extra-large paychecks, even when it's not in the interest of the lower-paid individuals in the org.
And now I've gone off-topic. Wheeee!!
For everyone so concerned about free access to space: Would you want Enron launching large things into orbit which might conceivably fall on someone's head? Would you want Microsoft?
Yeah, the government's inefficient... why aren't you calling up your representative and telling him/her to repeal the regressive tax cuts and use the money for space exploration?
[o]_O
And why would they need 25 BILLIONS to do something like that? that's the whole point of the "fable". Where does all this money go? Does NASA have full disclosure of expenses? Why are independent organizations able to achieve pretty impressive results with a fraction of the cost of NASA? Furthermore, why is it accepted that this agency should spend BILLIONS (that's thousands of millions of dollars for the ones that use the more common measurements) in order to get results they were able to get 20+ years ago? I'm not in the US, but if I were I'd sure be pissed off about this. Where's the space travel package in my travel agency yet?
--
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
Why the "West" Wasn't Won:
Because it's not possible to simply travel to "California" in a "wagon", and dump 1000 8 foot lengths of ceramic-coated rebar out the back of your "wagon" and destroy most most of the industrial capacity of a nation.
An aircraft smacking into a sky-scraper is *nothing* compared to the damage that can be done by anoyone who can get to "California".
It's not "NAFA"'s fault. It's an issue of maintaining control over your citizenry, while covering your ass.
The "West" hasn't been won because the people in the "East" are covering their asses, and no Horace Greely is going to talk them into not covering their asses.
-
Imagine if the DC-X had gone forward: they would not have been able to control eventual private ownership of the vehicles, or the launch and landing sites for privately owned vehicles, as a security choke-point.
They would not have been able to prevent people from landing in the crater Aristarchus, and declaring a new state there, through the simple expedient of requiring a runway be built to land and relaunch the vehicle, or the need for the vehicle to have atmosphere on launch/landing, as the X-33 requires.
It's all for your own short-term good.
-- Terry