Slashdot Mirror
Preview of Moon-To-Mars Report
schnarff writes "Space.com has obtained a sneak preview of the Moon-To-Mars commission report, which will be officially released June 16. The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy."
"It's not going to happen. This whole deal is just election-year BS from your friends at the Bush Administration who are still trying to distract you from the gigantic fucking mess they've created in the middle east by waving around some cool-sounding ideas that they have no intention of following up on. Oh sure, we'll spend a whole lot of tax dollars coming up with reports (like this one!) and let some worthwhile science projects fall by the wayside, but in the end absolutely jack will come of it. Hey! Look at that shiney thing! And have a nice day."
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
FFRDC? WTF?
(JK. I RTFA.)
I heard a rumor that R. Daneel Olivaw will be helping out here and there, especially with a new technology that can capture approaching comets and mine them for minerals. Can anyone confirm this?
I also reply below your current threshold.
Bastards.
"Y'all need to stop worrying about the middle east and the economy. I got that under control! And we aint stoppin' at the moon. Write this down. M-A-R-S, Mars bitches. We're going to Mars. Red Rocks!"
/very ad-libbed
"Yeai yeaaaaii!"
commission chartered by U.S. President George W. Bush to advise him on implementing a broad new space exploration vision is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.
.
The President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy is scheduled to release its final report June 16. A copy of that report, "A Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discover", was obtained by Space News
The 60-page report outlines the organizational changes the commission says NASA needs to make if it is to achieve the space exploration goals laid out by Bush in January. Those goals include returning humans to the moon by 2020 in preparation for eventual human expeditions to Mars.
The nine-member commission, headed by former U.S. Air Force Secretary Edward (Pete) Aldridge, said if those goals are to be met, the nation needs to commit to space exploration for the long haul, and that the private sector must be given a much larger role in the U.S. space program.
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states. "Today an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades -- if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this -- an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space."
The commission calls upon NASA to reach out to small, entrepreneurial firms through business opportunities targeted to them. The commission also endorses NASA's plans to award large cash prizes to encourage technological innovation. And the commission encourages the U.S. Congress to enact tax incentives, provide regulatory relief and clarify and protect property rights in space to encourage commercial exploitation of the final frontier.
In the more immediate future, the commission wants NASA to turn over nearly all launch activity to private firms.
"The Commission believes that the private sector is willing and capable of providing the initial boost into low-Earth orbit for the payloads associated with the vision," the report states. "To foster the continued development of this emerging market, the Commission believes that NASA should procure all of its low-Earth orbit launch services competitively on the commercial market."
The commission specifically exempts the launching of human crews from this recommendation, saying in the report that it realizes this responsibility "will likely remain the providence of the government for at least the near-term."
NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said June 9 that he had neither seen the commission's report nor been briefed on its recommendations. But during a speech delivered at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce earlier that same day, O'Keefe pledged to heed the commission's recommendations on transforming the space agency.
"The Aldridge commission has given a great deal of thought to how we should be organized in order to achieve these objectives," O'Keefe said. "We will be willing participants in implementing their recommendations. We are determined to transform the agency and our way of doing business to put these goals within reach."
The report says NASA needs to transform its organizational structure, business culture and management processes "all largely inherited from the Apollo era" if it is to accomplish the multi-decade exploration agenda laid out by the president.
The commission wants NASA to transform itself into "a leaner, more focused agency" starting with a major headquarters reorganization that reduces the number of mission-focused departments or what NASA calls enterprises.
Planning for such a reorganization is already well underway at NASA. A draft organ
Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
Why not run it like Venture capital? Where each project is like a "business" that has to develop and sell a plan, with intended payoffs (exactly what kind of information they will be looking for), potential bonus performance beyond the life expectancy, etc.
meh
NASA announced today that with the privatization effort in full gear, Halliburton had been awarded a no bid contract to adminster the entire US Space Program...
Ummm....I mean Black Bush. Next time I need to preview everything.
Perhaps I'm just to cynical but I tend to think that the USA decided to go to the moon to make the USSR look weak.
In a sense it was a competition between the USA and USSR over who had the bigest "dick", and phallic objects don't get any bigger or more powerful than a Saturn 5 rocket :-)
Now the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists, and none of them are going to compete in a race to Mars.
I was hoping for something more along the lines of a mission plan but I guess that's really up to NASA or whatever they will call themselves to do.
At least they didn't make the mistake that the first Bush's commission did by putting a crazy (and rather arbitrary) $400 billion price tag on it.
I just hope that NASA and JPL will be able to get some actual work done on getting to Mars while they move people around and change their workflow. I can see a few years wasted on that easily.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Basically, the report concludes that moving the Moon to Mars is both impossible and pointless.
Unknown host pong.
While I don't have any love for the Bush administration I would really like to see a Mars mission happen. It doesn't necessarily need to be a national budget buster, as Robert Zubrin has pointed out in his detailed plans in the books 'The Case For Mars' and 'Entering Space'...
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey," the report states.
If I could, I would mod this "+1 Insightful". When government research is done only in-house, the trickle-down effect of new technology is slower. I think that by harvesting the efforts of private industry you can drive down the costs of space exploration while opening up that technology for use in the private sector. And given that one of the main ways people justify space exploration is through the use of space tech for other applications, I see this as a good move.
(Disclaimer: Being an astrophysics student, I'm all for the exploration of space for it's own sake, but I'm not the one funding it...)
"The Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey...."
This one point seems so obvious. It has been said many, many times. Yet it's so hard for "The Powers That Be" to implement.
When the history of the airplane is considered, one has to be thankful that the Wrights did not work for the National Aeronautic Administration in 1904.
I am grateful for all that NASA has given us. But if we are to truly make the next step, the financial incentives for space must be given a chance to exercise their power.
It's hard to allow a child to move out on it's own, but for the good of both the child and the parent, it must be done. Yes, there will be mistakes and risk and danger. But the alternative is a stunted, deformed life that is nothing but tragedy.
This sig seemed like a good idea at the time....
ROFL!
Thank you. That is the funniest thing I have heard in a long time.
Now the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists, and none of them are going to compete in a race to Mars.
China announced they were going to put a man in space and on the moon. Suddenly the US announced they were going to the moon and to Mars. It's not hard to connect the dots when there are only two.
The report calls for spinning off NASA centers as FFRDCs, establishing an independent cost estimation bureau, and otherwise streamlining NASA's bureaucracy.
Only in the federal government would "streamlining bureaucracy" involve "FFRDCs" and a "cost estimation bureau."
[the commission] is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nation's space program at the White House.
My leap to a conclusion leads me to believe that this is just another chapter in killing NASA completely. This means that more funding previously routed to NASA/JPL will go to the private sector. Whitehouse oversight further implies that the administration does not trust NASA with what little self-governance it has remaining to it, particularly after the most recent shuttle disaster.
Which all just points to the private sector being the future of spaceflight for all practical applications. Hopefully companies will do a better job than our government has been doing.
*looks in pants...*
Speak for yourself, pal.
I also reply below your current threshold.
The problem with space exploration is that even if you go out to space with the most greedy intentions, the payoff is decades (asteroid mining) or centuries (terraforming) off. I'm all for it but getting capitalists to buy into it will be tough. Of course there is Microsoft with it's $40 billion nest egg.
Space exploration is really a public works project. This is a pretty interesting paper on the subject. The thing is that it ends up being a benefit to the entire human race but some the up front costs are so much, the payoff so distant and the effort so demanding, it's basically relegated to government bodies (or perhaps Bill Gates).
Blaze a trail to the New World
The last part was one from of Black Bush's aids eating a basket of chicken. Right before the sketch ended he yells it out. Doesn't sound anything like Deans outburst. Though my spelling probably lends a lot of different pronunciations of the onomonopia.
As an added bonus, people who complain about their tax dollars being "wasted on space" will have much less to bitch about.
---American astronauts and spacecraft suppliers demand tremendous amounts of money for "NASA" brand supplies and missions. Venture capitalists respond by waiting no less than 10 months for generic supplies to hit the market at bargain prices (pick up a Southwest Space Shuttle today!) or by venturing to Canada to get those brand-name "NASA" parts at far less than they would from the American conglomerates of GlaxoMcDonnellDouglas and Lockheed-Merck.
However, keep in mind, the government will be bringing in subsidies for the poor and elderly to experience the wonders of spaceflight! Look for Spaceaid and Spacecare, coming soon to an aviation office near you!
___ In the words of Gen. Douglas McArthur: "I'll be right back."
While I agree that the Moon To Mars mission is just a PR stunt, and that they haven't even approached a reasonable budget for it, I have some real problems with the report. Namely, the "NASA As A Punching Bag" style.
I'm probably going to get jumped on for this, but *every* national space agency has had huge problems of every type. NASA being the biggest, it's no shock that we seem to have more than our share. But seriously - look at the ESA. Ariane has been a disaster. How many more bailouts are they going to need? How many more times is Ariane 5 going to explode? The Soviets, in their hayday, were even more unsuccessful than us; look at their appalling mars record, for example. We've got some newcomers on the scene - China, Japan, and India - for whom it is too soon to judge. However, don't hold your breath for a miracle.
Private industry? What a laugh. First off, much of NASA's work *IS* done by private industry. The company I used to work for, Rockwell-Collins, had a major shuttle contract when it was being developed. They abused the hell out of it. Whenever any project ran out of hours, they charged it to the shuttle, even if it was unrelated. Private industry is supposed to *save* us money?
Small startups? Not even the slightest bit of success. Hundreds of millions of dollars were poured into private space startups during the dotcom boom, and all they have to show for it is a bunch of loping along companies and half-completed projects of bankrupt companies.
Is everyone just doing a bad job? Of course not. The problem is that the engineering challenges are *massive*, and there are so many variables that it is almost impossible to see what realistically could go wrong. On the really big projects, it gets even worse: not only do you have so many more things that could get wrong, but you have so many more people who have their ideas of what could pose a problem, most of which are not real threats. And now, if you don't investigate each of them, you're accused of suppressing whistleblowers.
This probably isn't going to be a popular post. I'm OK with that. But I don't like the typical Bash-NASA threads that these usually turn into, so I thought I'd add my two cents. Mod me as you will.
Carbon, made, only wants to be unmade.
Now the enemy is Islamic fundamentalists, and none of them are going to compete in a race to Mars.
Well, neither are the Islamic fundamentalists a superpower in any real sense of the term.
China, on the other hand, is gearing up economically, and has a stated desire to expand its space program. A Chinese landing on moon would cement their superpower status, so a US mission to Mars is the logical step in a (potential) space race with them.
And of course if the EU ever manages to form into a cohesive body (possibly a political counterweight to the US), it could also become a competitor in space.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
There was a race between the US and the USSR, but until Buzz Armstrong set his foot on the surface of the Moon, USSR had taken pretty much all the trophies: first man in space, etc (the list of USSR "space firsts" is quite long -- if you're the first then who gives a shit about the fact that your technology isn't really that great?). Sending a man to the Moon was pretty much the last chance to score a PR victory for the US.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
ewwww. If this is true, it's really a yucky thing to have happened. I feel sad for Rob.
So if this program is all a distraction, where are all the ads? Where is the heavy press covering the thing?
If one in a hundred people in the US could not even tell you anything about the program, could you really consider it a "distraction"? Or instead is this just another mindless attack agaist Bush, the content of which you post weither the topic is caterpillar reform or what kind of hot dog to include in the national school lunch program?
Perhaps you should get off your high horse and read the report to see if it's a good idea, regardless of who is elected. NASA needs an overhaul and at least this is a start. Otherwise you are really just an off-topic wanker.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
the scientists who will lose funding from other projects to fund this pork barrel Bush PR stunt or the people that actually believe this project is gonna happen
still Iraq's going well (if you are haliburton/hired mercanaries) so why should this be any different ?
"oh-my-God-it's-a-conspiracy"
No, not a conspiracy. A plot. It's just Bush's attempt to make himself appear "Kennedyesque," ingnorant of the fact that Kennedy launched the space program because he was already Kennedyesque. It doesn't work the other way around.
Not that it matters, because a project of this magnitude is going to take the continued support of multiple administrations, these aren't Kennedy's times either, and that continued support will not be forthcoming. This project is essentially doomed. It's a shame, but that's the reality on the ground. We'll get to Mars when a canditate runs on the "We're going to Mars" platform and wins, and not before.
But that's ok. The point of the project is exactly where you say it is, and where the real conspiracy lies. Spinning off tax dollars into the private sector, into the hands of cronies.
Make hay while the sun shines, as it were.
KFG
Wow, this story's view on space travel is simply riviting.
Slightly off-topic, but when the USA and the USSR were planning to dock two space-craft for the first time, neither power would agree to their craft being "penetrated" by the other - if I remember correctly a "female-to-female" adaptor was the eventual diplomatic solution.
Ironically, the Soviet Union was reasonably progressive in terms of putting women in space.
This is where the serious fun begins.
*preview*
remember when bush started this 'new' program and direction? HUGE publicity, little of actual content/plans.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
We can't learn anything about living on Mars by living on the moon, except maybe how people respond to being so far away from Earth.
Going to Mars AND going to the moon makes more sense, since the only related operations are leaving Earth orbit. Of course, since the moon is close enough for unmanned craft to do really good, long-term science, maybe we should set up unmanned craft on the moon, and send people to Mars where they can do the most good.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
you said it.
gcc -O3 -D_OMIT_BUREAUCRACY -o nasa.2.0 -lpriv -lboost nasa.c
... the same I have had for a few years now. I think the government is trying to gradually remove the civilian space program, turn that over to private sources at an almost "hobby" level, and concentrate on pure classified military useages of space. They can claim "streamlined government" and "grand opportunities for the private sector" and so on, then go back to space being the military's job, which has always been the real #1 reason to even have a "space" program, ie, it's the high ground, who rules there wins.. It also can have a blacker budget even beyond what they have now. In adition, we've gotten to the point that international "cooperation" has gotten seriously into the giving away the family jewels level, it is no longer prudent to do so.
IMO anyway
Private space launches will continue,like now, and the normal commercial satellites etc, but that is old hat tech now. I am guessing even the best of them will be at the grade B level of technology, grade A will be held closer by the mil complex guys, and that will be the stealthing of "man in space" to the public. they might blather on about some mars mission in 10-20 years, in the meantime I bet they will be doing a lot more manned missions using more exotic craft than what they let on to.
There are a few well placed comments about NASA in the recent book by Dan Brown: Deception Point. Yes it's fiction, but intriguing as well, considering NASAs track record (good and bad).
Let's hope we can really focus on a space future that makes sense, is reasonable expectation-wise, over-estimate on cost, and pursue long-term.
I work for an FFRDC.
--- Das einzige, das wir zu fürchten haben, ist die Furcht selbst.
I didn't see that much publicity. Something like one speech. I've seen no mention of it campain wise.
I would be interested to know Kerry's stance on the whole issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The whole space thing is a non-event for most people - thus not qualifying for the term "distraction". And as you say it was not even in the state of the union. So the original posters premise, that this is just some lame attempt by Bush to distract the populace, is thus utterly incorrect.
It's not nessicarily a flop, just ignored.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...what's the harm in just lying? Why not just make this a matter of national security? Someone needs to start putting out information that Earth's atmosphere is going to turn into helium in 50 years, and everyone needs to get to Mars as soon as possible. You wouldn't even have to convince everyone, maybe just 25% of the population. They'd go off and buy the technology and make it work, then everyone else could follow suit.
Well, that's what I'd do anyway.
"The commission also endorses NASA's plans to award large cash prizes to encourage technological innovation."
The inducement prize allows one-off profits.
Profit = Prize - Cost
The ANSARI X PRIZE and Centennial Challenges are the first steps.
Robert Zubrin recently had the idea of 'a competition open to all the different NASA centers and national laboratories and companies to see who could develop the most efficient Mars plan'.
China announced they were going to put a man in space and on the moon. Suddenly the US announced they were going to the moon and to Mars.
Actually, the Chinese government hasn't said they are planning to send humans to the Moon. Indeed, in recent weeks they have made it clear that they have no plans for human lunar missions for the foreseeable future.
It's not hard to connect the dots when there are only two.
I believe the aphorism you are looking for is, "If you want to draw a straight line, plot only two points."
And even today the postal service is a significant subsidiser of the airline industry.
will work like hell to avoid funding space exploration. As for the middle east being a mess, better there than here...
-- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
hmmmm
-- Note to liberals, yes please flee to Canada.
China, on the other hand, is gearing up economically, and has a stated desire to expand its space program. A Chinese landing on moon would cement their superpower status, so a US mission to Mars is the logical step in a (potential) space race with them.
They are a 'megapower' already, with worldwide military reach (ICBMs), nuclear stockpile, a manned space program, a significant GDP,
(other megapowers: France, Britain, Russia)
To become a superpower, you'd have to knock the US down a notch from 'hyperpower'.
(though a blue water navy would help, global airlift capability, and modern manned weapons systems, the only three things possibly missing, as they are already a permanent member of the security council (a good indicator of megapower status))
female-on-female action just isn't popular with bush administration. Or so they say ;)
Post: Offtopic -1
If they say "we're only going to mars" they're more likely to fail. Why? Because there are more obstacles (food and water and air for one). But if they say they're going to the moon then mars, they can just stop at the moon and there be considered some success.
I'd agree with you if the goal was to reach mars. But it's not. It's to look good.
Well said. I wish I had some mod points to give you. I used to work at an "FFRDC" (JPL) and can tell you from personal experience that most of the scientists and engineers work there primarily because of their interest in exploring space rather than anything else. IMHO what they need is less bureaucracy, and less politically motivated and more honest schedule and budget planning during the initial project planning phase. When I joined JPL the place was mostly ran by scientists and engineers, but by the time I left 26 years later it seemed to be mostly run by administrators with business degrees instead of science diplomas.
I still laugh about the time during the turn of the last century when a bureaucratic proclamation was decreed that all JPL computers shall pass year 2000 compliance tests and have compliance stickers affixed to them. At the time I was doing the programming for a pair of embedded rad-hard 8051 family microcontrollers that were part of the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM). Apparently no one told the division bean counter in charge of the Y2000 compliance program that the proclamation only applied to desktop computers and workstations. Since I was the sole programmer for the SIU flight computers (the 8051's), she sent me a sticker with instructions to run JPL's Y2000 compliance test software on them and to affix the compliance stickers to the computers. I got a great laugh out of this and so did the other people on the project - at first. I sent the bean counter pictures of the flight equipment in the clean room that contained the rack of JPL designed and built SRTM electronics (which included the 8051's in question), and explained that the microcontrollers did not run Windows (nor did they have any operating system at all other than what I had written!), and they did not even have a floppy disk drive in which to insert the Y2000 compliance testing software. Furthermore, the only "clock" they used was a real time clock interrupt whose software counter overflowed every 10 milliseconds, and that even if we did want to affix the compliance stickers to the flight computers, the stickers would have to be tested for outgassing, flammability, etc. It was great fun for awhile, even though it wasted a lot of my time.
I assumed that would be the end of it, and I ignored further entreaties and threats from the bean counter. Eventually my supervisor inquired about it because the issue wouldn't die, and unbelievably it ultimately escalated to two or three management levels above me, until finally someone in the program office (the people who designate money for projects) got involved and made the issue go away by getting a special waiver for us. The fact that such an idiotic issue should ever have arisen at all is totally astounding, especially since hundreds of man hours were probably wasted during the full course of events on this one issue. It boggles the mind.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
I have misgivings about our being able to get a real foothold in space using rockets (from the earth's surface) but is anybody working on any other approaches? Here's an article about the space shuttle, etc., that might elicit comment.
"Anybody can change the world, but most people probably shouldn't." -- Marge Simpson
One thing that I've seen nobody here discuss or even mention is the fact that we absolutely, desparately, need something to replace the shuttle, and soon. They're not getting any younger, and if we keep flying them (with all due respect to the remarkable maintainance and upgrades program), they'll all eventually be spread out in debris fields across the planet.
Even if congress doesn't fund the ambitious vision of the whitehouse, I imagine that they will realize the above, and fund the CEV (now known as "project constellation") - which is great because this vehicle will at least have the capability to fly beyond low Earth orbit. This is orders of magnitude better than we can do now, where going any further is impossible even if the will were there. Even if Bush's plan amounts to nothing, having a fleet of potentially deep-space faring craft makes taking the next step, far easier, both in terms of funding and political support.
NASA is now a big pork barrel to allocate government funds from the tax payer (who would prefer - lets see - national health cover) to some nice (Republician?) states (Texan, Florida -anyone?). Yes, another way of bankrupting the government and selling its assets cheaply to big business making them even richer.
Laugh! Nearly turned South African.
Do people think that getting private enterprise is going to help some small guy who likes to tinker with rockets? Big surprise. The money will go where the most special interest groups are(remember them - they're not the Gay Marriage people or the Crack addicts for free drugs - they're...wait for it...big business. Jesus, we can't even get funding for how much sugar is too much due to their tactics. One person, one vote my ass)
Ciao
Err, whatever...
Anyway this will be the spin that Fox/CNN will put on it since they themselves can only make a story about things you already know. Hence there is a *positive* spin story for George W Bush for free. Bush did all this work and NASA fucked it up again. I guess the best thing to do is to break up NASA and sell it to...umm...big multinational (ie American) military companies. Welfare for the rich! Split the cake up that all Americans own and give it to the Hyena's of business
Ciao
$250/ton launch costs to low earth orbit sort of change things a bit. Even the Space Elevator no longer makes sense competing with something like this, and the problems with blimp-to-orbit projects are a hell of a lot easier to solve than the problems of getting carbon nanotube technology ready to build ribbons long enough and strong enough to carry freight by the ton to orbit.
They make projects like solar power satellite networks look feasible. BTW, NASA's numbers that pointed toward feasibility were based on hypothetical $400/kg launch costs. The numbers look a lot better at $250/ton.
Given the risk-averse nature of modern corporations, this still would be a hard sell.
Perhaps government loan guarantees, liability caps like the ones given to nuclear power producers, and guarantees of X-million pounds of payload contracts to companies who prove the ability to deliver to orbit at $X or $XX dollars / pound would make it a lot easier to get private capital on board.
More of that sort of thing is discussed on my technology page, check the sig.
Tech Public Policy stuff
I have more confidence in Jerry Doyle, the Republican candidate for the San Fernando Valley congressional seat, who is better known to the science fiction crowd as the actor who played irascible security chief "Michael Garibaldi" on the legendary television space opera Babylon 5 . . than I have in Bush himself!
Space Powers Babylon 5 Star's Congressional Bid
So, what happened? Did Jerry Doyle win office?
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
I think the public perception of incompetence is just a crude smokescreen for malevolence. I have zero faith that what you are seeing now geopolitically from the US is being done to benefit the US middle class, the older traditional backbone of the US economy. On the contrary, everything we are seeing appears to only benefit a few international conglomerates.
The R&D now and into the future come from the same places it does now. 1/2 goes to uuniversities who get lucrative government grants and contracts, the other half go to private business contractors, with your usual secrecy, classified projects, and yada yada yada. It is changing slowly and going more international, either by putting the money outside the borders, or by similar to what they are doing now, importing the brains.
As to what technology is out there now, who REALLY believes "they" don't have a successor to the sr71 up and flying? Personally, I think they are probably 3 generations beyond sr71 technology.
And I agree,and not even in 50 years, try 10 to 15 years, I think the US will lose it's "public" top dog status, and I also think it's being done on purpose,completely on purpose, for a host of reasons,because it is part of an overall lofty heights connected elite globalism effort to make the planet a two class technofuedalistic big brother society. They also want to severely reduce the worlds population levels. I think it's fairly obvious, BTW, that this is happening. Governments by and large are increasingly irrelevent, they get *told* what to do, the rest is just soap opera for the peoples. That's a pretty involved subject and beyond some single post sized discussion, and a side issue, but it's my opinion on the subject.
Another possibility would be to make a tiny capsule for just the people, and accelerate that to a smaller velocity using a shorter accelerator. Sling a series of rocket fuel tanks out at higher and higher speeds, so that the capsule can dock with each tank, use it to accelerate, and then meet the next one. Presumably the fuel tanks could use a short accelerator with very high acceleration.
One evet does not a distraction make.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Then it still has no bearing as a tactic for distraction. Would it really have been better he do nothing and just let NASA drift? At least it's the start of a more realistic plan for getting to mars. It's better than what we did have, which was zero.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just answer me - what is so "off-topic" with an enquiry asking whether an actor, who portrayed a successful role in a well done Space Fiction TV series, has made it into a political seat; when asked in a thread concerning the possibility of US return to manned space exploration?
.
(David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
The last thing we need in space right now is the fascist Americans.