Jeff Foust discusses the problems that NASA is having in communicating a purpose for its lunar activities. Understanding the “why” isn’t just important in terms of maintaining public support. It also drives requirements.
There are implicit assumptions about why we’re going back to the moon intrinsic in NASA’s chosen mission architecture, though they’ve never been stated explicitly. I lay out several potential reasons for a lunar base in this post, in which I point out that NASA’s architecture is actually ideally suited to a “touch and go” approach (i.e., the only reason we’re going to the moon is because the president said so, so we’ll build a system that’s really designed for Mars instead, and just happen to use it for some lunar missions if the political establishment decides it still wants to do that in a decade or so).
If the purpose was really to enable settlement, rather than just setting up a tiny and trivial government base, we’d be spending a lot more money on systems that drive down the marginal cost of trips to the moon. Instead, NASA has chosen an approach that maximizes it.
Jeff Brooks has an intriguing, but I think fundamentally flawed idea: to set up an international organization to manage Martian land sales.
I’m all in favor of granting title rights off planet, and agree that it could provide a useful mechanism to raise private funds for planetary exploration, but I’m afraid that a transnationalist approach is doomed to failure. Better to simply amend the OST (or withdraw, failing that) and allow sovereignty claims (in fact the treaty could come up with a way to equitably distribute the claims). But I wouldn’t trust an international organization to safeguard my civil or property rights, given the nature of the international community.
Jeff Brooks has an intriguing, but I think fundamentally flawed idea: to set up an international organization to manage Martian land sales.
I’m all in favor of granting title rights off planet, and agree that it could provide a useful mechanism to raise private funds for planetary exploration, but I’m afraid that a transnationalist approach is doomed to failure. Better to simply amend the OST (or withdraw, failing that) and allow sovereignty claims (in fact the treaty could come up with a way to equitably distribute the claims). But I wouldn’t trust an international organization to safeguard my civil or property rights, given the nature of the international community.
Jeff Brooks has an intriguing, but I think fundamentally flawed idea: to set up an international organization to manage Martian land sales.
I’m all in favor of granting title rights off planet, and agree that it could provide a useful mechanism to raise private funds for planetary exploration, but I’m afraid that a transnationalist approach is doomed to failure. Better to simply amend the OST (or withdraw, failing that) and allow sovereignty claims (in fact the treaty could come up with a way to equitably distribute the claims). But I wouldn’t trust an international organization to safeguard my civil or property rights, given the nature of the international community.
We’re not going up to see the launch tonight, because the probability is still only about 30%, last I heard, and we have to go to a company Christmas party down in Miami. But if anyone is planning to drive over there, don’t expect to go in to Titusville:
Normally considered a great place to watch a launch, the main thoroughfare through the town will be closed in both directions this evening for the city’s Annual Christmas Parade. Motorists should expect significant delays.
James Sensenbrenner didn’t get the ranking member position he wanted on the House Science Committee. He lost out to Texan Ralph Hall. Hall will be much more devoted to JSC, while Sensenbrenner, with no NASA centers in his state of Wisconsin, would have been better for commercial space.
Sorry, I think we tried the foreign aid bit back in the nineties on ISS. As I recall, the result was late deliveries of hardware, and a proliferation of dachas, Mercedes, and Cayman accounts.
Sorry, I think we tried the foreign aid bit back in the nineties on ISS. As I recall, the result was late deliveries of hardware, and a proliferation of dachas, Mercedes, and Cayman accounts.
Sorry, I think we tried the foreign aid bit back in the nineties on ISS. As I recall, the result was late deliveries of hardware, and a proliferation of dachas, Mercedes, and Cayman accounts.