A Timetable to Space
At a recent space tourism conference it was stated that while space tourism was probably a sure thing, there was no timetable set as to when flights would begin. That's an easy one, flights will begin just as soon as NASA gets out of the space transportation business. Of course the space supporters can't see that simple point or they are afraid to state it openly. So, if you really want to be a space tourist, you have yet another reason to write your Congressman to get NASA out of space transportation.
COMMITTED
Think about it for a minute, If you got on an airplane and the pilot walked up the aisle wearing a parachute, you could figure that the pilot was not really committed to a safe landing for you and the rest of the passengers. The same thing applies to Space. If you're a part of the space launch industry you don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that NASA is NOT committed to the success of the private launch industry. The investors have figured it out. The Space Shuttles are NASA's parachutes. If the industry collapses, NASA will still have their Space Shuttles. To be exact, a collapse of the private launch industry would be proof for NASA that only they can fly into space, and NASA could then return to launching all payloads into space with a secure monopoly in Space. It's time for NASA to stop being cowardly, and become really committed to a future of private commercial space transportation.
PRIVATE SPACEFLIGHT
Fact; more people have flown into space than have sailed alone around the world. An interesting fact, yet it points out that commercial cargo and passenger ships are so common today and are so convenient that few people take the time and risk to go around the world alone. While the legal and political environment almost dictates privately piloted spacecraft, it is obvious that space will not be a place for private pilots, but for commercial operations - profitable operations. Now is the time for governments to take the steps to support those industries.
WHO SPEAKS FOR SPACE!
Does Space have citizens? Can Space have citizens? What are the qualifications to be a citizen of Space? In another flash of insight, I propose that anyone who stays more than five days in Space be granted Citizenship of Space. (Five days is about how long it takes to adapt well enough to zero gravity to keep your cookies down.) Of course citizenship would lapse upon reentry to Earth atmosphere, except for anyone actually born in space who would be a permanent citizen. While many countries are rather stingy with their citizenship imposing all sorts of tests and qualifications, just getting into space for more than five days should be qualification enough. There would have to be some sort of ceremony of course, like a three axis spin. Military personnel by oath of office would have to be disqualified. Foreign vessels should receive free passage, but require permission to land on objects in Space.
The point is that while we here on Earth can talk about what to do with Space, we aren't there. Anyone actually in Space will automatically have a viewpoint that changes their perspective about what are the important issues. The Russians have found that long term Mir residents have a different perspective than Mission Control, and NASA certainly found that to be true with their labor relations problems on Skylab IV. Space being the unforgiving environment that it is, I have great faith that they ( the citizens of space) will make the correct decisions, or they will soon die, or at least have to reenter earth's atmosphere thereby loosing their citizenship. To popularize this concept, anyone who stays in space for more than five days should, by radio, by honored with the news that they have been granted citizenship. Who knows, it might catch on, then the citizens of Space can make the decisions about what's best for Space.
LIMITS TO GROWTH, OR YOUR FUTURE IN SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURE.
If you plan on travel across interstellar distances to another star system you run into several problems. One of which is, because of the length of the journey, the need to have 100% recycling of air, water, and food. Any leakage in the system will eventually become fatal. But this problem also exists for we humans stuck here on planet Earth, or Space Ship Earth.
We now know that Earth's resources are not infinite. If we plan on staying on Earth into the infinite future, any consumption of nonrenewable resources will eventually deplete that resource. That pretty much restricts future Earth residents to a subsistence agricultural life style. We currently recycle only about two percent of nonrenewable resources, and even the best recycling technology will exhibit a large loss. Technology on a closed Earth will eventually become extinct. If however, you include space resources into that future, infinite technological growth is assured. Well, growth in Space is assured, you'll still probably want to limit growth on Earth to sustain the environment.
JANUS WITH TWO FACES, AND TWO VIEWPOINTS, OR WHY PEOPLE CAN'T SEE EYE TO EYE OVER SPACE.
The space race is over, the frontier is opened, but now there is a disagreement over the best use of Space. Socialist or Capitalist? Socialists cannot comprehend the capitalist thought process, and capitalist think socialists are just plain nuts.
Socialist -Space is about NASA science and exploration.
Capitalist -Space is about commerce, industry, and colonization.
Socialist -Science is dependent on budgets, and financed by Congress.
Capitalist -Commerce is driven by profits, and financed by private investment.
Socialist -A budget represents a limited amount of money.
Capitalist -There is no limit on available private financing.
Socialist -One organization with all knowledge and missions is the most efficient use of that limited budget.
Capitalist -Free market redundancy with diversity and niche marketing selects the most efficient organizations.
Socialist -Competition represents a threat to the limited budget funding.
Capitalist -Competition generates more capital investment.
Socialist -Commerce serves the greater good that is NASA.
Capitalist -Science and government provide the environment that allows industry to produce growth and investment.
Socialist -Everything that NASA does is much more important than anything that Free Enterprise could do.
Capitalist -Anything that Free Enterprise could do is more important than everything NASA does.
Socialist -A budget viewpoint accepts a limited future.
Capitalist -growth and the future are unlimited.
Socialist - Non government people in Space will ruin the environment for NASA science, civilian access to Space should be limited.
Capitalist - Space is of no use unless it is filled with private citizens.
QUESTION? How are things going at NASA? Is the Shuttle program doing just fine? Space Station coming along OK? If you ask most people on the street, they think that NASA is doing a fairly good job, buuut could improve a just little. If you read the NASA press releases, everything is just rosy and the future is just around the corner. In fact, the shuttle flight rate is down to three a year, the station is stuck on hold, and our space probes are pretty fouled up. Things are really bad, yet, if NASA were to come to a complete halt, launching nothing, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing, but still cranking out glowing press releases, would the public notice that no progress was being made in space? Has NASA bored the American public to the point that our space program could quietly be slid into oblivion?
SPACE, FOR ALL MANKIND, FOR AMERICANS
Everybody in the world is worried about making sure somebody else doesn't get an advantage in Space. Third world countries don't want space development without their getting a share. Countries with space programs don't want anybody else making claims on space resources ahead of them, The International Space Station is more about keeping everybody even than about making progress into Space. As a result the concept of national claims and private property have effectively been banned from Space. But I feel that America should be the country which colonizes Space. Why? Because the very definition of American excludes race, religion, and a class bound society. No other country can claim to be as representative of all humanity as America. We should be proud of our open, inclusive, democratic, and diverse society. If Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon for all mankind, then he did so for Americans, and we ought to set a claim before anybody else does.
ASKING FOR TROUBLE
Eventually somebody will lay claim to an asteroid, or a section of the Moon or the entire planet Mars, it's going to happen. When it does, you can be sure of one thing, they will be someone we don't like. They will be a race, a religion, and a political system which excludes all others. They won't want to open space up to anyone else but themselves. In the 50's we sat by while the Soviets launched Sputnik, and suddenly someone we didn't like had possession of Space. When some foreign adversary lays claim to a space resource we will be forced to mount a massive, expensive, wasteful, and misdirected program in an attempt to catch up, and even then, the goal will probably not be to lay competing claims, but to block all claims. It would be far better to set up a system of claims and titles to encourage an orderly utilization of Space now then to wait for a future conflict. If the U.S. economy should decline, we may not have the power in the future to insure that Space is democratic and an economic opportunity for all people.
Quote of the day, "Power concedes nothing without demand." Frederick Douglas.