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."
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
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
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.
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