5 thoughts on “The New Frontier”

1. Thanks for this, Rand. I find Mr. Tumlinson’s explanation of the von Braunian and O’Nealian (sp?) perspectives compelling. I wonder, though, if it isn’t a false dichotomy. Perhaps, like the frontier that Mr. Tumlinson mentions at the end, we need the von Braunians to go first, while the O’Nealians follow after.

   I also wonder whether space isn’t more conducive to von Braunian ends than O’Nealians. I remain a bit skeptical of the whole ISRU and exploitation fantasies of some of the O’Nealians. Harvesting raw materials doesn’t seem economical, really, and the notion of building a factory literally out of the dust while wearing a space suit doesn’t seem very feasible, either.

2. The Von Braun’s show us that the technology to go there exists, the O’Neill’s tell us why going there is worth while. The Sagan’s (as the speaker suggested) just want to show us how pretty the night sky is and how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things.

3. Actually it was the Heinlein’s that showed us why we should go, the O’Neill’s actually steered us into a dead end with their 19th Century model of space industrialization based on commodities and static (L-5) centrally planned settlements.

4. Thomas,
   As a Heinlein fan I appreciate your answer and you are right in terms of how it should be done. O’Neill’s gift was in putting a plausible (at the time) engineering face on the dream of space colonization. He gave, as the speaker said, people permission to dream. But you are right that his plan wasn’t really feasible, which explains why it never happened. Many of the assumptions made in The High Frontier (especially with regards to the usefulness of the shuttle) just didn’t pan out. O’Neill’s ideas were a product of his time, much as VonBraun’s were a product of his.

5. The problem with Sagan, Von Braun and O’Neill is that none of them were businessman. One day we’ll add a fourth paradigm.

Comments are closed.