4 ms·

So what kind of organization(s) do you see doing a better job than Nasa? I would agree that it's a political and rather inefficient organization, like any gove

So what kind of organization(s) do you see doing a better job than Nasa? I would agree that it's a political and rather inefficient organization, like any government-funded agency, but I'm curious how exactly we could improve. Bear in mind that many of Nasa's best projects were undermined by politics. A new Administration comes into power vowing to re-prioritize spending, and Nasa's champions within the White House and Congress are suddenly without jobs. A recession hits and Nasa is an easy target for budget cutters. A Congressman threatens to withhold spending unless Nasa locates a facility in his district. You can't fix this stuff; it's part of the landscape.

jerf 12y ago
The ideal would be for someone to figure out how to make money in space. Once you harness the mighty power of greed, nothing short of all-out war would be able to keep humans out of space. But that's proved to be a bit of a tall bar, unfortunately, which in itself sort of raises questions about the actual utility of space anew after 50 years. But before quite making that call let's see what knocking another order of magnitude off launch costs does for us. But I find myself often thinking that space just isn't viable for very many uses without a still-higher level of technology than we have.
- DanielBMarkham 12y ago
  Agreed that we really need to knock a couple of more digits of cost-to-orbit before we can make any kind of informed decision one way or another. Also agreed that it's not looking good so far. Mass drivers could send cargo into orbit cheaply -- perhaps given the right cargo/human ratio, you'd end up with a drastic decrease in cost overall, especially with reusable rockets. Right now there's just no there there. Most of the great arguments for getting off the planet are 1) Science! and 2) We need to get the heck out of Dodge before we kill ourselves. These are very good reasons, but it's like pushing a rope -- you'll never make space exploration happen by lecturing people and taxing them for it. Instead put some greed into the mix. If you find a big enough pull, then you'll see the dynamics radically change. Space needs an 1849 Gold Rush.

jerf 12y ago

The ideal would be for someone to figure out how to make money in space. Once you harness the mighty power of greed, nothing short of all-out war would be able to keep humans out of space. But that's proved to be a bit of a tall bar, unfortunately, which in itself sort of raises questions about the actual utility of space anew after 50 years. But before quite making that call let's see what knocking another order of magnitude off launch costs does for us. But I find myself often thinking that space just isn't viable for very many uses without a still-higher level of technology than we have.

DanielBMarkham 12y ago
Agreed that we really need to knock a couple of more digits of cost-to-orbit before we can make any kind of informed decision one way or another. Also agreed that it's not looking good so far. Mass drivers could send cargo into orbit cheaply -- perhaps given the right cargo/human ratio, you'd end up with a drastic decrease in cost overall, especially with reusable rockets. Right now there's just no there there. Most of the great arguments for getting off the planet are 1) Science! and 2) We need to get the heck out of Dodge before we kill ourselves. These are very good reasons, but it's like pushing a rope -- you'll never make space exploration happen by lecturing people and taxing them for it. Instead put some greed into the mix. If you find a big enough pull, then you'll see the dynamics radically change. Space needs an 1849 Gold Rush.