Crisis of the Day - Discussion & speculation

[Grey Havoc]

This is a 'safety valve' spin-off of the Russian-Ukrainian Conflict News thread.

Just in case!

 

[Orionblamblam]

In the other thread, sferrin mentioned his disdain for the notion of turning over the ISS to the Russians (based on the hypothetical of the Russians not flying Americans to the station anymore). But I gotta say... let 'em have it. It's old. It's crappy. It's scientifically dubious. It's a maintenance nightmare and a money-sink. Friggen' thing doesn't even rotate to produce artificial gravity.

If the ISS was no longer NASAs responsibility *and* their budget didn't get slashed, imagine what they could accomplish (with good leadership). Having Putin annex the ISS as he has annexed Crimea could well be the kick in the pants the US public needs to demand *real* progress out of NASA and the US aerospace industry.

 

[sublight_]

Having Putin annex the ISS as he has annexed Crimea could well be the kick in the pants the US public needs to demand *real* progress out of NASA and the US aerospace industry.

The public. I hate to be pessimistic, but the American public is by far her biggest weakness......
The "Cosmos" reboot with Dr. Tyson pulled about ~5 million viewers last Sunday, so maybe a few more souls care about space.....

 

[bobbymike]

In the other thread, sferrin mentioned his disdain for the notion of turning over the ISS to the Russians (based on the hypothetical of the Russians not flying Americans to the station anymore). But I gotta say... let 'em have it. It's old. It's crappy. It's scientifically dubious. It's a maintenance nightmare and a money-sink. Friggen' thing doesn't even rotate to produce artificial gravity.

If the ISS was no longer NASAs responsibility *and* their budget didn't get slashed, imagine what they could accomplish (with good leadership). Having Putin annex the ISS as he has annexed Crimea could well be the kick in the pants the US public needs to demand *real* progress out of NASA and the US aerospace industry.

Agree some good old fashioned Cold War competition would do wonders, I believe, for aerospace and defense technology funding. If the public gets to the point where they threaten DC politician's livelihood then anything is possible.

 

[sferrin]

In the other thread, sferrin mentioned his disdain for the notion of turning over the ISS to the Russians (based on the hypothetical of the Russians not flying Americans to the station anymore). But I gotta say... let 'em have it. It's old. It's crappy. It's scientifically dubious. It's a maintenance nightmare and a money-sink. Friggen' thing doesn't even rotate to produce artificial gravity.

If the ISS was no longer NASAs responsibility *and* their budget didn't get slashed, imagine what they could accomplish (with good leadership). Having Putin annex the ISS as he has annexed Crimea could well be the kick in the pants the US public needs to demand *real* progress out of NASA and the US aerospace industry.

Good point. We'd have to wait until the next administration though (and assume it wouldn't be a Democrat. At least not the crazy kind.)

 

[Rickshaw]

The Republicans, particularly the Tea Party attending ilk, have no more vision than the Democrats, as far as Space is concerned. Both sides see it as a serious drain on the purse. I'd have thought all the Libertarians here would have preferred there to be no Government agency or interference in space development. Of course, the fact that Space doesn't pay may well indicate why private industry hasn't stepped up to do anything with it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Fortunately, the Republicans - in particular the Tea Party attending ilk - have much more vision than the Democrats, as far as Space is concerned. Libertarians here prefer there to be substantially less Government regulation and interference in space development. Of course, the fact that Space pays may well indicate why private industry has stepped up to do many things with it.

 

[circle-5]

OBB:1 / Kadija_Man: 0

 

[Orionblamblam]

OBB:1 / Kadija_Man: 0

What's that? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of HUNDREDS OF COMMERCIAL SATELLITES CURRENTLY IN ORBIT.

 

[Rickshaw]

Commercial satellites? I'll grant you that but basically they were all lofted by Government owned and managed instrumentalities. What demand there is for private space corporations comes from demand from Government. So there's the contradiction - Libertarians proclaim they don't want Government but the space visionary Libertarians are reliant on demand from Government for their dreams to be fulfilled. The reality is that Space, apart from near Earth orbit telecommunications, just doesn't produce profits. The ISS? A scientific oddity, nothing commercial there. Going to the Moon, Mars? Nothing commercial there. It's not until you get proposals to mine the Asteroids that you come up to the possibility of profit. We can't get there yet and even if we did, no commercial entity would find backing for such a venture because of the long-term finance which would be required in order to develop the technology.

BTW, if Republicans are so in favour of Space, why has NASA's budget been cut so much under their administrations? The Tea Party is made up it seems primarily of hard-line Libertarians who want essentially no Government, to the point of being IMHO anarchists. If the Tea Party gains control of the Republicans (which many of them claim they already have), how will they reconcile that contradiction WRT to their supposed dreams about Space? No Government essentially equals no space exploration.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Commercial satellites? I'll grant you that but basically they were all lofted by Government owned and managed instrumentalities. What demand there is for private space corporations comes from demand from Government.

Do I have time to make Nachos before the replies come? This should be fun. The Law of Rickshaw's Proposition Inverse Authority in action again.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Do I have time to make Nachos before the replies come? This should be fun.

Meh. At this point I'm assuming that someone must be posting messages from the other side of a wormhole leading to an alternate reality where there *isn't* a whole hell of a lot of private enterprise bent towards space and where Tea Partiers are anarchists rather than people who just want the government overspending to at least just slow down a bit and where the demand for space tourism is being driven by government entities and all those comsats beaming down MTV and "Ishtar" are all CIA psy-ops mechanisms.

 

[SOC]

Commercial satellites? I'll grant you that but basically they were all lofted by Government owned and managed instrumentalities. What demand there is for private space corporations comes from demand from Government.

They were all lofted by government boosters partly because of the prevailing attitude problem around here: if the government will do it for you, be it buying your food or orbiting your satellite, why do it for yourself? Take away the government as an option, as is increasingly the case now with space access, and surprise, commercial space companies with their own booster designs are appearing.

So there's the contradiction - Libertarians proclaim they don't want Government but the space visionary Libertarians are reliant on demand from Government for their dreams to be fulfilled.

How do libertarians require the government to do it if private industry is coming up with ways to do it? The development of the latter precludes the former. Plus, libertarians don't want no government, they want less government intrusion and regulation, i.e. a much smaller government bureaucracy. A libertarian government that canned NASA would also through deregulation make it simpler for private corporations to develop space assets.

BTW, if Republicans are so in favour of Space, why has NASA's budget been cut so much under their administrations?

Until the idea that returning to the Moon was the plan, there were no hugely significant new programs I don't think. The ISS and the Shuttle were already there. Mars missions went ahead even though NASA smeared one of the landers. There's also been more international cooperation with organizations like the ESA for scientific missions, meaning it costs less than if NASA wanted to do it by itself. So, without a lot of the need behind the funding, I can see why you'd have a budget cut. Plus, just because you have a Republican in the White House doesn't mean you have a Republican-controlled or otherwise cooperative Congress, which is where the budget comes from in the first place.

The Tea Party

...are, while they have the ability to make some good points, largely delusional and combined with the neo-con movement part of what's wrong with the Republican party and conservatism in general these days.

hard-line Libertarians who want essentially no Government, to the point of being IMHO anarchists.

...again, no, it's "less" not "none". And in some cases there's a delineation between concepts related to federal and local government, i.e. some issues should be handled at the local or state level and the government should leave it alone. Plus there are a bunch of different flavors of liberalism, and while some do tend to be far more anarchic in their overal lpolitical stance regarding the existance of government that is not representative of the movement as a whole. That'd be as wrong as saying all Tea Party people are racists because a news channel finds one dumbass to interview. Robert Byrd was in the KKK, the same logic used to smear the Tea Party (or any other political group) dictates that one must agree that all Democrats are therefore racist. Which is clearly asinine and not actually logical whatsoever.

Also, NACHOS! Now I want nachos. Thanks a lot, Abraham!

 

[Rickshaw]

Do I have time to make Nachos before the replies come? This should be fun.

Meh. At this point I'm assuming that someone must be posting messages from the other side of a wormhole leading to an alternate reality where there *isn't* a whole hell of a lot of private enterprise bent towards space and where Tea Partiers are anarchists rather than people who just want the government overspending to at least just slow down a bit and where the demand for space tourism is being driven by government entities and all those comsats beaming down MTV and "Ishtar" are all CIA psy-ops mechanisms.

It really is interesting how much you deny reality. :

 

[Rickshaw]

Commercial satellites? I'll grant you that but basically they were all lofted by Government owned and managed instrumentalities. What demand there is for private space corporations comes from demand from Government.

They were all lofted by government boosters partly because of the prevailing attitude problem around here: if the government will do it for you, be it buying your food or orbiting your satellite, why do it for yourself? Take away the government as an option, as is increasingly the case now with space access, and surprise, commercial space companies with their own booster designs are appearing.

They are appearing in the US. I'm yet to see any, anywhere else. Europe? Nope. Russia? Nope. China? Nope. India? Nope. Even Japan hasn't got any of those commercial space booster building companies. Most commercial satellites even in the US are lofted by NASA. A few LEO satellites have been done by private enterprise but they are in the minority. All those commercial telecommunication satellites, launched by Governments. It may be that commerce sees it's easier to utilise the experience, knowledge and proven designs that Government has produced for a reason. If you want a cheap, safe satellite launch, use an R-7 or Long March based booster.

So there's the contradiction - Libertarians proclaim they don't want Government but the space visionary Libertarians are reliant on demand from Government for their dreams to be fulfilled.

How do libertarians require the government to do it if private industry is coming up with ways to do it?

See above. Private developed boosters are still a long way off and even then, they'll only loft small payloads initially. Not going to be used for most satellites because they won't be able to compete on price when Government decides to drop the prices when competition starts.

The development of the latter precludes the former. Plus, libertarians don't want no government, they want less government intrusion and regulation, i.e. a much smaller government bureaucracy. A libertarian government that canned NASA would also through deregulation make it simpler for private corporations to develop space assets.

Depends on which sort of Libertarians you're talking about. The more extreme, as represented by some here essentially want NO Government, if their blogs are to be believed. Their attitude towards government regulation amounts to being little different to anarchy. The reality is that today's society requires bureaucracy to function, to provide the services which make a society well, a society instead of a collection of misanthropes.

As we have seen with the Global Financial Crisis what happens when deregulation occurs. Who is going to check on the safety of your deregulated space launchers? There will be, as you suggest, no government to do it. There will be no regulations that they must adhere to, if the Libertarians have their way. There will be though, a bunch of Libertarian cowboys set free to do what they want without care or responsiblity.

BTW, if Republicans are so in favour of Space, why has NASA's budget been cut so much under their administrations?

Until the idea that returning to the Moon was the plan, there were no hugely significant new programs I don't think. The ISS and the Shuttle were already there. Mars missions went ahead even though NASA smeared one of the landers. There's also been more international cooperation with organizations like the ESA for scientific missions, meaning it costs less than if NASA wanted to do it by itself. So, without a lot of the need behind the funding, I can see why you'd have a budget cut. Plus, just because you have a Republican in the White House doesn't mean you have a Republican-controlled or otherwise cooperative Congress, which is where the budget comes from in the first place.

Perhaps not but some here talk as if it is only the Democrats who are unfavourable to space. What most of them forget is that it was Kennedy who started the whole thing off. What is lacking is vision and I'd say that the myopea is abundant on both sides of the political spectrum in the US polity.

The last Republican administration was more willing to pour trillions of dollars into invading other countries and killing people than going anywhere outside the Earth's orbit. Where is the replacement for the Shuttle? Where is the replacement for the ISS? As it is, we generally see the same Libertarian and Right-wingers here propounding the virtues of wasting squillions on ICBMs and nuclear weapons than on increased space exploration.

The Tea Party

...are, while they have the ability to make some good points, largely delusional and combined with the neo-con movement part of what's wrong with the Republican party and conservatism in general these days.

I agree. Unfortunately both groups have moved the Republicans to the far right, taking control largely from the moderate right wingers who can appeal to the majority of voters with sensible policies. Sensible policies attract voters, extremism doesn't. Which is why Obama won twice and more than likely if the same crop of crackpots are put up next time, the Democrats will win again.

hard-line Libertarians who want essentially no Government, to the point of being IMHO anarchists.

...again, no, it's "less" not "none".

Depends on whom you read.

And in some cases there's a delineation between concepts related to federal and local government, i.e. some issues should be handled at the local or state level and the government should leave it alone. Plus there are a bunch of different flavors of liberalism, and while some do tend to be far more anarchic in their overal lpolitical stance regarding the existance of government that is not representative of the movement as a whole. That'd be as wrong as saying all Tea Party people are racists because a news channel finds one dumbass to interview. Robert Byrd was in the KKK, the same logic used to smear the Tea Party (or any other political group) dictates that one must agree that all Democrats are therefore racist. Which is clearly asinine and not actually logical whatsoever.

Agreed but one goes by what one reads, both in the MSM and in alternative places such as blogs and the Blogs claim to be representative and who am I to doubt them? One notable here is always railing against all government regulation.

Also, NACHOS! Now I want nachos. Thanks a lot, Abraham!

Go and make some then but please, use real ingredients, not pre-packaged crap.

Personally, I'm settling down to a nice curry. ;D

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It really is interesting how much you deny reality.

NACHOS!

Boeing Launch Services Inc.
Sea Launch
EADS SPACE Transportation
Arianespace
International Launch Services
IAI
ISRO
United Launch Alliance
Starsem
SpaceX
VirginGalactic

 

[Orionblamblam]

It really is interesting how much you deny reality.

NACHOS!

Boeing Launch Services Inc.
Sea Launch
EADS SPACE Transportation
Arianespace
International Launch Services
IAI
ISRO
United Launch Alliance
Starsem
SpaceX
VirginGalactic

It's probably about time to stop feeding the interdimensional troll who claims that most American commercial satellites are launched by *NASA.*

In any event: I propose a debate on the merits of yelling out not "Nachos!" but instead...

 

[Rickshaw]

How many satellites has NASA launched?

How many satellites have private companies in the US launched?

How many of those private companies have their own launch facilities?

How many of the satellites launched by private companies have not used US Government launch facilities?

How many deep space probes have been launched by private companies?

Appears to me that they all suck off the teat of Government. Be it US or foreign. The satellites they do launch are invariably owned by Government, they are supplying a service to Government. Remove Government demand for their services and what happens to the market? Oops! :

By the way, that lists two companies which are essentially the same entity, just with different names. One that is largely owned indirectly by Government(s), one that is purely a space tourism venture and another which wholly owned by Government and that is just a cursory examination!

Again, denial of reality. You regularly declare anybody who disagrees with you a "troll". It is how you avoid answering the hard questions. Keep up that hand waving, you're good at it. ;D ;D

 

[bobbymike]

Russia, Ukraine, Crimea, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Chinese air defense zones, missing Malaysian airliners, etc.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/sec-kerry-us-to-send-scientists-to-discuss-homosexuality-wit

 

[Hot Breath]

Perhaps Senator Kerry can, "walk, fart and chew gum at the same time," as President Johnson suggested that the future President Ford couldn't? Or in your opinion are the human rights of Homosexual peoples not worthy of your Secretary of State's concern?

 

[J.A.W.]

Well, mayhaps they do got some `splainin' to do..

Like.. as to why HIV got away on 'em - over there..

 

[flateric]

going nowhere again. locked
guys, please come here to discuss secret projects.
to discuss politics, go everywhere else you want