A worth-repeating quote from Henry Spencer (a Canadian) over at sci.space.policy a few days ago:

>> Of course, I don't expect that this fact
>>will make the politics of launching
>> a nuclear engine much easier.
>
> Oh it will happen. It's just that manned space
> exploration is passing away from the
> democraciesthat are too narcissistic to care.

Nonsense. What we've seen so far (and what NASA is trying to return to) is just incidental dabbling. The days of real space exploration by free men still lie ahead, and in fact are getting pretty close. The cartoons are ending, and the curtain is about to go up on the main feature.

If all this sounds bizarre and fantastic, you need to stop thinking in terms of the socialist dream -- spaceflight for the glory of the almighty state, the way NASA does it -- and start considering the sort of space exploration that free people might do for their own reasons. It's already possible to fly in space for any reason you think sufficient, if you've got the price of the ticket. It hasn't worked out quite the way we thought -- who would have *imagined* a world in which the only commercial spaceline requires you to learn Russian to get a seat assignment?!? -- and it's too damned expensive, but these nuisances will change soon, when real competition begins.

NASA will never, ever put men on Mars. Their target date for it is receding more than a year per year. But the first footprints on Mars almost certainly will be those of free men.

Henry, like many others, misuse the term "socialist", which for him seems to be "anything the government does that I disapprove of." Governments do lots of things, even cutting edge science, technology, and exploration that the private sector is not prepared to do.

And, not to get to be too snarky, but what is this business of "free men?" Are there to be no "free women" in Henry's bright, new libertarian utopia? (g)

Henry, like many others, misuse the term "socialist", which for him seems to be "anything the government does that I disapprove of."

Nonsense.

Mark, the primary meaning of the word "man," deriving from the Sanskrit "manu" is a member of the human race, of either sex.

"A male human" is a secondary meaning, which the word takes on in particular contexts. For example, when discussing the "manned space program" of the 1960's which was, indeed, a males-only club.

The word "socialism" means "state ownership and control of means of production, such as factories, industries, transportation systems, etc."

Henry is using the word correctly. There's one person in this thread who argues that any form of state ownership and control he approves of (like Orion capsules and Ares rockets) is "not socialism." That person is not Henry, though.

Mark, the primary meaning of the word "man," deriving from the Sanskrit "manu" is a member of the human race, of either sex.

More likely "man" and "manu" have a common indo-european origin.

Mark, is there anything that a government does that isn't socialist, by definition? An army is most certainly a socialist entity (and that is what NASA was from 1957 to about the mid 1970's, an army of rocket scientists). Perhaps it is a failure of my imagination, but I cannot think of one single thing done by any government that isn't by definition socialist.

I read Mark's blog entry on this. For a guy who claims to make money by writing, you'd think he would know how to use a spell-checker. For starters, Henry's name is "Spencer" not "Spenser."

But what I find rather odd is Mark's claim that a single report produced in Britain somehow has ended the debate about humans vs. robots in favor of humans. It hasn't, which is why nobody is currently talking about exploring Mars with humans, or exploring Europa with humans, etc.

Having observed you guys from years, it's pretty clear that there is a small clique of vocal space enthusiasts (Rand, Mark, Ed Wright) who repeat the same arguments over and over again, with the same silly sniping. Do any of you guys have anything new to say? You're apparently all stuck on your same little postage stamp of an opinion, unwilling to allow anything to change your mind.

There was a time when "conservatives" knew what socialism was.

There was a time when "conservatives" cared about privacy, freedom, and fiscal responsibility.

There was a time when 'liberals' cared about The Middle Class, Civil Rights, The Rule of Law and National Defense.

Tim, yes, those, too.

Also, Tim, there is no need to change your mind when the facts are all on your side of the argument. Best regards, Lee

Ed, socialism properly defined is government or collective ownership of industry. The military, being a government function, is hence not socialistic.

Tim - Part of the Vision for Space Exploration includes human exploration of Mars. One suspects that Europa could be included in the "beyond" part of "Moon, Mars, or Beyond." Also, the National Rsearch Council endorsed the return to the Moon, which includes humans. The robots vrs humans debate is indeed over except for certain, cranky people who can't let it go or admit defeat/.

> Ed, socialism properly defined is government or collective ownership of
> industry. The military, being a government function, is hence not
> socialistic.

NASA is not the military, Mark. NASA was founded to take space exploration *away* from the military.

Someone who calls himself a "space policy analyst" should know that.

Edward, it was I who suggested that NASA was a military force, not Mark. And certainly the implementation of NASA from 1957 to the mid-1970s was most definitely military in nature. Sure, they weren't shooting bules at the Russians, but the race for the moon was a war nonetheless.

Mark... wasn't it Ike who warned of the "military-industrial complex"? If so then he spoke of the military and industry in the same breath.

> And certainly the implementation of NASA from 1957 to the mid-1970s was most definitely military
> in nature. Sure, they weren't shooting bules at the Russians, but the race for the moon was a war nonetheless.

No more than the war on cancer, war on poverty, and other metaphorical "wars."

> wasn't it Ike who warned of the "military-industrial complex"?

Yes, and that was the primary reason he created NASA: to separate spaceflight from the military.

I hope most sincerely that the first feet on Mars are not just those of a free human, but one who wasn't born on Earth.

The Ares mission (almost an inevitable name) will be an Apollo writ large; a useless waste of time, resources and know-how.

Back to the Moon first; this time to stay, and to work. And then cislunar space. (Used to be L5, but I'm told there is now some doubt about this.)