Presidential panel says NASA's manned-flight future is bleak

Mostly because the Federal Government is in the way.

You can't just slap a rocket together and shoot it into space.

Tourism is what will fuel exploration not only of space but of the technology needed to traverse it.

As tourism companies pour money into research to make space travel safer and cheaper those payoffs will slide over to the exploration side.

The exploration side will push further outward enabling the tourists to follow behind.

Um, you know that the computer you typed that post on owes its existence in large part to the space program, right?

Yup. Making money pushes technology forward faster than any sort of noble aspiration like exploration.

Do you think computers today would be so advanced if it wasn't for the porn industry?

Thought it went further back to Alan Turing.

Y'know, that gay guy.
Who's invention you now spew homophobic drivel on with no sense of irony whatever.

Not porn but games. It was and still is games that really pushed personal computers. Then everything behind it followed.

I'd say both.

Either way, it's the money that drives innovation.

All porn did was pictures and then video.

With games you had to push the limits of the entire computer to get better games.

All of that is drawing my mind to one inevitable conclusion: Porno games.

3-D characters, modeled after and indistinguishable from live actors, performing whatever depraved acts the player commands. Give them a massive free-roaming environment like GTA, a bunch of open-ended missions to break up the freak-fests, and you've got a beast of a game only the best machines will run.

What about our society? We've got a lot of issues bubbling under the surface some of which will boil over at some point. Do you think that people are going to give a shit about space exploration if the worst projections about global warming are right? What's the world going to look like if the Chinese are the dominant power? You think that they'll provide access to space for anyone who wants it? Or do you think that they'll limit it to those who share their particular ideology?

There is a narrow window of opportunity because of dwindling resources. As with all things, there is a point of no return if we don't develop the required technologies now while we have the resources to do it.

Correct. It was games that put computers in the average guy's house, but it was pr0n that drove the development of the internets after Al Gore invented them.

I saw it on the Google.

Which was more successful, the state dominated Spanish and Portuguese exploration/colonization efforts, or business backed English and Dutch?

Yeah, early one they grabbed alot of territory quick and some short term gains (actually all the gold led to hyperinflation and stagnation of their economies), but in the long term the state guided but corporate ran English and Dutch systems were much more successful.

One thing that needs to be established is property rights. I seem to recall that by treaty the moon itself can't be owned (don't know where I heard it, could be pulling it out of my ass), but what about a captured asteroid brought into earth orbit? I think that would be a big hindrance to future private exploration. Who is going to want to explore if they aren't allowed to reap any rewards?

Tourism is certainly doing its part, but mining and resources will ultimately be the driving forces. Right now, we're just starting to transition out of the stone knives and bearskins era of spaceflight. It's going to be up to the gubmint to develop the technologies that make access to space cheap, then the really good stuff happens. For the time being, that's where all that gubmint R&D money comes in.

Although a Ripley's Aquarium of the Sea of Tranquility would be pretty cool.

Who's going to enforce those treaties? If I show up with a million tons of something like platinum or palladium (both needed for fuel cells and catalytic converters) that I mined on the Moon and am offering to sell them below market prices, I'm not going to have trouble finding buyers. If I pay my miners below the US minimum wage, make them work in extremely hazardous conditions, how are you going to stop me?

Anc would nuke you from orbit just to be sure.

If it came down to it, there would only be one way to be sure our laws were enforced......

SONNABITCH! My attempt at subtly cost me to lose by a minute!

It'd take about 3 days for said nuke to get there, and it'd be pretty visible and vulnerable during that time. With the Moon's lower gravity, it'd be really easy to loft a big chunk (or multiple chunks) of the Moon at the nuke.

I can tell you right now and without any hesitation no government on this planet is going to let someone bring an asteroid into earth orbit. You've got gravitational problems not to mention, "oops we lost control and it's crashing into earth!!!".

A tinfoil hat scenario: IIRC Kahless unified the Klingon empire because when the orbital weapons platforms were built he took them over and threatened to wipe the rest of the planet clean unless he was made Emperor.

And why the hell would you want to park one in orbit anyway? Park it out in space where you don't have to worry about gravity issues of the Earth and Moon.

As for the moon yes there is a treaty but as soon as man can get there on a reliable basis that treaty is going right out the airlock.

It's actually pretty similar to the rules regarding international waters where you can't claim ownership of them, but do maintain sovereignty over things you do directly control. So if you have a base/mine whatever in space that doesn't count as a claim to owning the entire celestial body, however you do control your territory. When it comes to things like asteroids I guess the laws would be the same as regarding grabbing resources/salvage from the ocean.

Why? B/c it is closer. Not to mention something BIG is going to have to be brought in to anchor the space elevator if we can ever get that functional.

I think the best place to park asteroids would probably be in orbit of the moon. Keeps them close to Earth while also being relatively safe.

uhhh no the best to park an asteroid is right where you found it.

Why would you use up tremendous amounts of fuel to move a giant rock and then move it into orbit of the moon or earth? It makes no sense economically.

And don't assume that because one is in the orbit of the moon that the earth is safe.

I'd prefer we keep giant rocks as far away as possible from Earth and the Moon.

We are going to send someone named Quaid.

And then Cohaagen your ass will be getting tossed out an airlock.

Obama may have fucked things up for our descendents in more ways than just paying back the national debt. The space program is technological life insurance for the human race. He might be about to cancel our policy.

Someone needs to tell these people, then.



IIRC, there's a local guy here who's also selling moon "real estate" (we did a story on him a couple of years ago).

I work with NASA on a fairly regular basis, and I have to say, if they're short of cash, they've got a very funny way of showing it.

I imagine some of them going home and dancing in showers of dollar bills, given the way they lash it about.