Explore (n): To travel for purposes of discovery.

Sitting in a mission control room watching television may be science, but it’s not exploration.

> Neil Armstrong explored the Moon, so did 11 other men from Earth.

But you and I did not.

> The knowledge they gained in that exploration has been beneficial to me, if
> for no other reason it raised my spirit just to see man make it to the Moon.

Which does not make you an explorer, merely a voyeur.

> I will likely never be able to go. But 12 others have gone and that
> is good enough for me for the time being.

Your expectations are very low, and you give up far too easily.

Unfortunately, that is the primary spiritual legacy of Project Apollo — the false belief that space travel must be prohibitively expensive and we can never be anything but voyeurs. That, I submit, is not a benefit.

> By your definition the Moon would not be “explored” until every man, woman
> and child alive had trod the lunar dust.

Not by them, no.

What is not a myth is that Nixon hated Kennedy’s guts and was eager to do anything to eradicate any lingering illusions about JFK and Camelot.

That is why the Bush VSE cannot be the “Bush” VSE because on January 2009 or January 2013 (or sooner if Kerry wins) any ongoing program that might provide a lasting Bush legacy will be gutted. Perhaps even by Bill Frist or John McCain. McCain owes Bush some serious payback for 2000 dirty tricks.

If we wanted the VSE to survive President Bush, non-partisan support needs to be built from the very begining. And saying: “Here is our back room plan, salute or else” is a bad way to develop a broad consensus.

NO, you do not. Robotic craft are part of exploration. We have sent robotic craft to Mars and explored that planet, we have learned more about Mars than we knew before we sent them, the result of exploration via robotic craft. One-day man will go in person and explore, but the process of exploration of the planet Mars has already begun. Your argument that exploration can only be done by man in person is without any basis in fact.

>Having someone else go “for” you is not a substitute.

Yes, it is. Neil Armstrong explored the Moon, so did 11 other men from Earth. The knowledge they gained in that exploration has been beneficial to me, if for no other reason it raised my spirit just to see man make it to the Moon. I could not go; I will likely never be able to go. But 12 others have gone and that is good enough for me for the time being. Hopefully more men will walk the lunar surface in my lifetime. By your definition the Moon would not be “explored” until every man, woman and child alive had trod the lunar dust.

Posted by MrEarl at October 25, 2004 04:08 PM

One visit to REI, or any travel agent, will show otherwise.

> As much respect as I have for Burt Rutan and his pilots they are only
> repeting govenment sponsored resurch that is 45 years old.

You mean the way Christopher Columbus and Leif Erickson were merely repeating journeys that others had made before? Star Trek to the contrary, few explorers go “where no man has gone before.”

By your standard, Gus Grissom was not an explorer because he was only “repeating research” done by John Glenn. Where is it written that there’s only value in making a journey if you’re the first person to get there?

> Burt’s and Vergin Galatic’s whole reason is utilisation. You make the common
> mistake of equating personal exploration with exploration by sociaty.

Society does not explore any more than society robs liquor stores. Individuals do. Society didn’t fly the first Mercury mission; Alan Shepherd did.

If you want to explore Yellowstone National Park, you have to go to Yellowstone. If you want to explore space, you have to go to space. Having someone else go “for” you is not a substitute.

If so, why would that be a good thing?

There’s this myth in the space community that NASA was on the verge of colonizing the Moon, Mars, and the entire solar system when Nixon suddenly got up one morning and decided to replace it with the Shuttle.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Apollo was cancelled because the cost was unsustainable. Nostalgia to the contrary, Apollo capsules were not safer than the Shuttle. (Anyone remember Apollo 1? Apollo 13?) Tapes from the Kennedy administration show that JFK had no great interest in space beyond the immediate goal of a manned Moon landing, and NASA funding began declining while space-hawk LBJ was in office.

The idea that NASA needs to get “back on track” overlooks the reality: the track was leading nowhere.

I don’t know about “most of the space community,” but I don’t agree with all of that.

I have nothing against NASA doing exploration, but I don’t agree with the idea that only NASA can do exploration and the rest of us are limited to “utilization.”

Some have said that only the government can do “Lewis and Clark” exploration. That’s funny, because I just received a brochure from government agency inviting *me* to “explore Lewis and Clark territory.” Another agency estimates that 30 million Americans will explore Lewis and Clark territory over the next three years. Very few of those explorers will have government commissions.

Some have said that space exploration is too dangerous for the private sector. Yet, I walk into stores like REI and find equipment for exploring mountains, caves, and other dangerous places, all of it available for sale to the private sector.

Some have said that space exploration is too expensive for the private sector. Burt Rutan and Elon Musk would surely take exception, but even if they’re right, I recall that the US Navy hired Bob Bollard to do undersea exploration for them. Why couldn’t NASA hire private companies the same way?

The public was not allowed to debate or wrangle over the policy when it was being written, and you don’t want the public to debate it now.

When do you think the time for public debate is, Mark? After the last Constellation astronaut walks on the Moon, beginning another 40-year hiatus during which space activists reminisce about the good old days?