Space, the lost frontier

[Bigduke6]

Well if we look at the moon shots, there were several drivers that made them happen:

- The space race was on and it was very easy for the government to sell "we can't let the Commies beat us" to the general public. To a great extent, even questioning the Apollo missions in a general sense was considered unpatriotic.

- The US was in a period of perhaps unique economic strength, and probably more important, most Americans were getting a cut of the good times. This was an era where most (ok, not minorities but you get my point) citizens could buy a house and support a family on a working man's salary. A single salary at that. This made people optimistic and so inclined to support government programs needing public optimism to support them, and that is Apollo in a nutshell.

- There were (when the "go" decision was made on the program) no major wars in progress, citizens weren't getting shot at by insurgents who refused to accept democracy, etc. So the military wasn't a major drain on the public till, which of course freed up cash for space.

- The demographics of the nation I would argue really skewed the public mindset towards space. The seniors had seen the country go from a small town farming mindset to a global superpower, the middle-aged had fought and won WW2, and the youth were just numerous. It may not be PC but I suspect the fact women and minorities at the time really weren't a big part of the public decision-making process had a lot to do with public support to space. The logic is white American males are more likely to think space exploration is exciting than most other sectors of the society.

I think it is safe to say that the country has changed since then, and therefore, so has the nation's willingness to support space exploration.

My point is, my opinion, the decision to commit resources to space exploration has very little to do with actual benefit to society, and mostly to do with the touchy-feely of how much society likes space flight, which in turn depends on how much society feels like their own lives are going ok. Nationalism in terms of "we can't let them beat us" also is a factor. But the bottom line is public optimism, the perception that things are good enough on Earth that resources are available for a push out into space.

There is always the chance that the citizens of America (or possibly the Europeans or maybe even the Europeans and the Americans together in a single project) might get their societies wealthy enough, and the wealth spread widely enough, that public opinion would back a major space program. Peace meaning no wars absorbing resources and killing citizens would help for no matter how often politicians say "it's sustainable" most citizens will think that if there is a war or two on things are probably not well enough off on Earth for a big space effort to make sense.

Frankly, I don't see that happening in the next several decades. Wealth is relatively concentrated and it will take democracy time to reverse that, and the wealthy will fight it tooth and nail.

There is an alternative, which of course are the command economies. Russian space skill is at least comparable and in several ways superior to US skill. They're not screwing around, just this week their Mars sustainability test (people living in a pretend module isolated from everything else) passed the one year mark. The only thing preventing the Russians from a major space effort right now is that the leaders, and this is a group of about 100 men, tops, think resources are best spent strengthening the state and state-controlled industries. If a solid majority of those men concludes (a) sufficient resources are now available for a big space program or ( space for whatever reason is now a national priority of the first order, then the Russians will go to Mars. Those 100 men don't have to worry about public opinion much as for the most part they dictate it.

China of course is not exactly a command economy, but like the Russians for the most part if the leaders decide a direction for the nation, it happens without much discussion. They also have the advantage of oodles of cash and for what it's worth strong public support, unsurprisingly there are plenty of Chinese that think their country is on the right track, even if Internet is censored and the Tibetans repressed. The main barrier to Chinese space flight, as I understand it, is technology, they only started getting serious about space flight in they 1990s and they need practice. Being Chinese they are not sitting around doing nothing, they've orbited the moon twice and last I heard they are supposed to land a probe in 2013.

Perhaps once that happens, that will convince the Kremlin it had better shove some of that oil and gas money into space exploration, and then with the Chinese and Russians setting the pace maybe the Americans and the European leaders will be able to use that as a lever to force their populations to sacrifice so as not to fall behind.

There is of course the international option which assumes every one gets rational and decides going to Mars or beyond is too much for one nation so every one does a bit. The international space station is a good starting point for how to make that happen. But making it happen takes will in all the participant nations, at the same time.

Right now I'd put my money on the Russians, but it's not a great bet, the Chinese have more potential capacity.

[dieseltaylor]

Good one BD6.

The flipside of this is the US public probably have a suspicion that any space program will have a lot to do with enriching some military/aerospace corporation, its shareholders, most particularly some bosses. and politicians.

[costard]

I think one of the great changes in the makeup of western society in the years since the second world war has been the reversion to a feudal system: promotion now follows familial/status relationships and less frequently makes the choice of greatest capability. This has occurred in all areas, including our political leadership and our education institutions. As a result, the possibility of bringing about the successful conclusion of another such great project is diminishing.

It would appear that we have wars because it is the only way we can manage to promote capable leadership. The rest of the time we devolve in line with the weaknesses of the human animal; sloth, greed, pride, all corruption and ill-discipline leads us to be ruled by leaders who have no requirement to behave any better than we do ourselves. We've squandered that which so many fought and died for, it very much looks like we'll be having to do the same (again and again, that's the history of the human race) if we wish to recover those freedoms and that wealth.

[dieseltaylor]

Is this not the essential weakness of democracy - or the current forms at least. The short-termism of four year terms just aggravates the peoples instinct for self serving policies, and the politicians desire for re-election.

The Presidentuial system is the worst possible system as the Presidential candidates, at least in the US, do not get honed by a party system where a track record and working with others of your party is unnecessary to be put forward as a Presidential candidate. Witness Reagan or Palin. As long as they could be sold to the public it was not necessary for anything else to be considered.

The UK seems to be going that way with Cameron catapultd from nowhere to leadership of the Tories. The great benefit of a Parliamentary party electing its leader is that they can get rid of him even if he is the Prime Minister.

So perhaps war is not required but a more rational form of government. Length of term being an important premise but with other changes to improve the quality of the politicians and the government apparatus.

One of the previous benefits of the House Of Lords prior to being politicized was the number of apolitical peers who would discuss and examine Bills without partisanship. And being unelected the desire to please a segement of the population was not the necessity it might be to a political party eager to please a pressure group.

[Michael Emrys]

I think one of the great changes in the makeup of western society in the years since the second world war has been the reversion to a feudal system...

Gee, and here I was thinking that I was the only one who noticed this.

As a result, the possibility of bringing about the successful conclusion of another such great project is diminishing.

Yeah, that too is a point I've been pondering the last 30 years.

We've squandered that which so many fought and died for, it very much looks like we'll be having to do the same (again and again, that's the history of the human race) if we wish to recover those freedoms and that wealth.

I hate to sound all gloom and doom, but that's how it looks to me too. I notice that human beings have a tendency to not address problems early when solving them would be easiest. Rather, we let them fester until they turn into huge problems that require an emergency by-the-skin-of-our-teeth kind of effort that just about breaks us. And so it goes...

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Is this not the essential weakness of democracy - or the current forms at least. The short-termism of four year terms just aggravates the peoples instinct for self serving policies, and the politicians desire for re-election.

I really don't think that is the problem and getting rid of the four year term would not provide a solution. The greatest corruption seems to attach itself to those who linger in office the longest and thereby accrue the greatest influence to put on the auction block. Frequent elections allow the public to call their representatives to account and remove them from office if they cannot give a good account of themselves.

The problem lies in the public's inability and/or unwillingness to think about what makes for good leadership and who exercises it. As long as the public is willing to tolerate incompetents and crooks, that's what it will get. And note that this did not happen overnight. The slope may be slippery, but it's not all that steep. For decades, for generations even, step by step good government has been eroding. As recently as 30 years ago good men and women of good conscience were willing to serve, but they either could never get elected or they had to compromise too many of their principles to do so. Then, if they achieved office, they found themselves so hogtied by commitments to their backers that there really wasn't much they could accomplish there.

So those with the real power, meaning those with the big bucks, patiently leveraged their advantages until there really wasn't much left that could stand against them. We are ruled by pale kings and princes and often we don't even know their names. Welcome to the new dark ages.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

People don't like to be pushed out of their comfort zones. Thinking is uncomfortable and can yield to unpleasant revelations about one's own character. Logical analysis is much more difficult than simply reacting to one's feelings. So people just don't bother to put much effort into thinking through problems, particularly those way above their ability to directly impact. They find people they agree with, settle for letting these others do the "research and analysis" and simply accept those persons' stated opinions as fact. They vote based upon what moves them at the moment.

And here we are: "Fools to the left of me, jokers to the right and here I am stuck in the middle with you."

[Sgt Schultz]

Emrys for President .. A troubled man for troubled times.

Well said sir. I agree with basically all of what you stated.

----

On topic ... Chinese for sure. Russia's space program is so far down the toilet they can't see the end of the roll. Unless we detect an impact object that we can divert.... in time to divert it, there is no way the Americans are going back to space in any kind of organised way. It's all Pan Am and Hilton U.S. space presence now folks.

Americans won't be the first on Mars, but we will be the first to put a Pizza Hut in orbit.

---

We lost thousands and terrorists blew up two skyscrapers and our military HQ.... we went shopping. Not the National Spirit required to accomplish large projects of any kind.

[Magpie_Oz]

So glad we're not letting this get political

[Pak_43]

"People don't like to be pushed out of their comfort zones. Thinking is uncomfortable and can yield to unpleasant revelations about one's own character. Logical analysis is much more difficult than simply reacting to one's feelings."

Other "people" presumably? You know those other people...

"So people just don't bother to put much effort into thinking through problems, particularly those way above their ability to directly impact. They find people they agree with, settle for letting these others do the "research and analysis" and simply accept those persons' stated opinions as fact. They vote based upon what moves them at the moment."

Once again, other people presumably? Nothing like a gross over-generalisation about "people" to back your point up I guess...

[Charlie Marlow]

The Presidentuial system is the worst possible system as the Presidential candidates, at least in the US, do not get honed by a party system where a track record and working with others of your party is unnecessary to be put forward as a Presidential candidate. Witness Reagan or Palin. As long as they could be sold to the public it was not necessary for anything else to be considered.

As per the forum rules (which seem to be observed more in the breach), I won't get into politics, but I have to comment on this one. Obviously a shot at Reagan, but a really stupid one. Whether or not he was a good president, and lots of opinions both ways on that, to say that he did not work within the party system or have a track record displays remarkable ignorance of American politics and history.

The man was ONLY the chief executive of the most populous state in the United States for 8 years before running for President.

Sheesh.

EDIT to note that most American presidents have significant political if not executive experience. This list doesn't even include legislative or judicial experience that many of them had. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_executive_experience

Don't look now, but your thesis is broken.

[Michael Emrys]

Nothing like a gross over-generalisation about "people" to back your point up I guess...

When discussing whole countries and societies generalizations are unavoidable. That doesn't mean that we should get careless about them or try to claim that one size fits all. I don't think gunner has done either of those. As for his descriptions, I will confess that I have done all of those things enough times to make me humble. But facts are still facts and one shouldn't remain silent in proclaiming them just because oneself is not utterly blameless. Now if you have anything useful to add to the discussion, pray do so.

Michael

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I am shocked Jev.dk hasn't come here to brag on his launch.

Well done Sir! Well done!

[JonS]

He bragged to me in a PM, and I congratulated him likewise

[Jev.Dk]

Sorry, I had no time to brag, was busy editing pictures, and having a couple of days off afterwards

But Hell yeah, what a ride "We did IT"

What a launch, I was in a boat 400 meters from the rocket when it took off.

That is a sight I will never forget.

The team just cant get their hands down.

pictures and movies here

http://cphevent.com/