Who would have thought that Mel Martinez, the Republican Senator from Florida, once coached baseball with anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-space-weaponization activist Bruce Gagnon? Well, that’s what Gagnon claims in an essay today on OpEdNews.com: “We coached our sons baseball team together back in the early 1990’s in Orlando. I got hit in a car crash once and he was my lawyer.”
Besides the odd connection, what does this have to do about space? Well, Gagnon says the two will “get to play hardball once again” because of Martinez’s recent pledge to minimize the Shuttle-Orion gap. Gagnon claims that he really understands what’s behind NASA’s plans to return to the Moon. And that’s where things start to get strange.
“The Moon base the U.S. wants to establish is really about two basic things,” he writes. “One is the establishment of mining colonies on the Moon to extract helium-3, a precious resource that could be used for fusion power here on Earth.” Not an uncommon argument, nevermind that helium-3 reactors don’t exist and likely won’t for decades. That other reason? “But in order to make the Moon mining program possible, new launch capabilities must be developed to lift the heavy payloads necessary to build the Moon bases and return the mined resources back to Earth. This is where the nuclear rocket comes in.” Ah, yes, nuclear rockets.
What other insights does Gagnon provide in his essay? Here are some direct quotes:
- “Nuclear powered mining colonies are also on the drawing board.” [This is starting to sound like the setup for the movie Outland]
- “NASA is working to create mining colonies on Mars as well.” [Good, don’t want the Mars Society to feel left out.]
- “The Army has had plans since the early 1950’s to set up military bases on the Moon.” [Well, had plans in the 1950s, but not now.]
- “So military bases on the Moon play a key role in the space ‘control and domination’ program outlined in the U.S. Space Command’s 1997 document called Vision for 2020. It’s hardly a coincidence that the NASA goal for establishing manned bases on the Moon is set for 2020.” [But then again, maybe it is.]
- “Scientists have long known that there exists an Earth-Moon gravity well.” [Newton would be proud.]
- “The space industry has declared war on the poor and the working class. Which will it be folks? Social progress or bases on the Moon?” [Let me get back to you on that one.]
Somehow I don’t think Sen. Martinez has to worry too much about “hardball” from Gagnon: all he’s tossing are slow, erratic knuckleballs.
That’s one of the most, er, _interesting_ articles I’ve read today, Jeff. Count me in on the evil government plot to colonize space by building mining colonies! BTW, do we get secret decoder rings roo?
Absolutely. Secret decoder ring distributing kangaroos for everyone.
Are they photon powered decorder rings? And do the tell where we’ve hidden the sharks with fricking laser beams on them?
Bruce Gagnon is pretty funny. But there is a serious side to his rantings.
Gagnon has gotten some media attention by leading protests against the launch of certain space probes, such as Galileo and Cassini, which use plutonium as a power source. His beef? A launch accident would wipe out South Florida, if not the world.
His meme of social programs vrs space program is actually as old as space exploration itself. A look at the Congressional Record on debates over NASA spending going back to the early 60s makes for interesting reading.
Gagnon’s anti capitalist/anti military rant is on the far bleeding edge of left wing politics. But there are people, a little less insane than he is, who do object to space commercialization on environmental grounds and to military operations in space for much the same reason that the far left objects to the military on Earth.
Gagnon is nuts. But he does reflect an attitude that is more widespread that many would like to think.
It never takes long for things to “start to get strange” with Bruce.
That’s the problem with a space program built on politics, Mark. Any time you politicize something, then any kind of attack is fair game. Every public penny going for space exploration could go into a hundred other programs, each with some schmuck out there who’s ready to appear on TV and ask how come moon rocks are more important than his pet cause. And that’s not even touching the fear-mongering aspect of it, as pointed out in this article.
I believe we’re entering an age where any kind of manned exploration at all will be viewed by some as somehow upsetting man’s role in the cosmos, as I pointed out on my blog a while back. Hopefully I’m mistaken.
Oh yes Mark, please explain to us again why the Democratic Party and liberals are the bain of society, and why if Hilariy gets elected, we are all doomed, and how it’ll be the end of manned spaceflight, and how nobody in the Democratic party can honestly support manned spaceflight
Ferris: Mark hates Democrats. He hates them when he wakes up in the morning and he hates them when he goes to bed at night. He’s not about to change his rant because you point out laws in his logic.
I’ve read what Mark said three times now, and I didn’t see the word “Democrats” or “liberal” in it anywhere. Are Ferris and Keith denying that there are people who believe the things that Mark says, and occasionally effective in translating such beliefs into political reality?
“left wing politics”
The thing to be said for nuts like Gagnon is that their motives are altruistic. Conservatives and libertarians who oppose space do so because they want yet another tax cut, or think the money would be better spent on more efficient ways to kill people.
“left wing politicsâ€
Well, I don’t like “left-wing politics” so much, either. It doesn’t mean that I “hate Democrats.”
And you didn’t answer the question. Just what is it in Mark’s statement that you’re disputing? Or is your only response an ad hominem one, that “Mark hates Democrats”?
Well, I don’t like “left-wing politics†so much, either. It doesn’t mean that I “hate Democrats.â€
Did I accuse you (in this post) of hating Democrats?
Mark, on the other hand, demonstrates his hatred of Democrats virtually every time he posts. Call it whatever Latin term you wish.
Keith/Ferris,
Since the end of Apollo, what administrations have supported manned and unmanned spaceflight? And what administrations haven’t? My opinion…
Nixon – not supportive
Ford – not supportive
Carter – not supportive
Reagan – supportive
Bush – supportive
Clinton – not supportive
Bush II – supportive
There has not been a Bill Proxmire type within the GOP over the past 30 years. Happy 4th of July.
Jim – I’d argue that for Bush, Clinton, and Bush II, none of theme were particuarlly supportive. Actually, I’d argue they weren’t not suportive either – none of them have really cared about it. Bush senior’s SEI was dead on arrive, and didn’t doing any of the political lifting required to build the support. And if we want, we can have a whole other round of whats wrong with ESAS, although I think we’ve had enough of that. Frankly, if that were Bush’s example of support, I could do just fine without it. And, as for Clinton being not supportive of space, well, we’ve had discussions about ISS, the station alternative access program, and other thigns
Have there been Democrats who didn’t support the space program? SUre there are, and there have been Republicans too (I’d be surprized if there weren’t at least a few Republicans who opposed SEI, or for that matter voted against the station, when it almost died). But don’t act like its bizarre to see a Democrat (or if you prefer Rand, someone of the Left wing political persaision) who support spaceflight, and manned spaceflight. Hell, we all know what Richardson has done, and Clinton has already hosted an event to talk about space policy (it was largely nasa policy, but still). Rudy didn’t even talk about it when he was visiting Huntville (I think it was Huntsville).
Keith – And I hate them in a box and I hate them with a fox. I hate them on a train and I hate them in the rain (g).
Of course neither Keith nor Ferris has actually refuted the conclusion I made in my original post. There are exceptions one can point out, but on the whole liberals tend to be less supportive of things space (and that includes the private and public sectors) than moderates and conservatives. This is just a fact, which may be a hard thing, but it exists nevertheless.
Ferris,
Bush I called for the Space Exploration Initiative. Bush II called for the Vision for Space Exploration. And while their political lifting for both projects (especially SEI) has been less than desired at times… at least they proposed something. What did Clinton propose? The GOP, I believe, has been more supportive over the past 30 years of the space program, in all it’s forms (government and private). The Democrats have been less supportive.
Gagnon has gotten some media attention by leading protests against the launch of certain space probes, such as Galileo and Cassini, which use plutonium as a power source.
True, but it’s worth noting that he attracted almost nothing in the way of protests and media attention regarding last January’s launch of New Horizons, which also carried an RTG. The one protest they did hold outside CCAFS prior to the launch, on a weekend, brought in only a few dozen people. Even people involved with the project, from what I understand, expected bigger protests.
Gagnon is nuts. But he does reflect an attitude that is more widespread that many would like to think.
Protesting nuclear-powered spacecraft seems pretty low on most activists’ list of priorities these days, particularly compared to Iraq and the various controversies involving the current administration. The next RTG-powered spacecraft, to the best of my recollection, is Mars Science Lab, scheduled for launch in the fall of 2009. By then a new administration will be office; we’ll see if Mr. Gagnon and his “Global Network” can thus attract more people to protest it.
Mark – I’ve cited Ms Clinton, Bill Richardson, and I can add a 3rd Democrat (and one whose left credentials are without a doubt) – Dennis Kucinich. Now, yes, he has pushed for a ban on outer space weapons, (and we could turn this into a debate about space weaponization, I have no desire), he has pushed for major increases in Nasa’s budget, as well as other space initiatives. See this space review for details. I can also add in there Al Gore – he who helped to CREATE the internet went to X Prize Cup, and spoke out in favor of commercial space. I’d argue I could even possibly cite Richard Branson and Elon Musk, but I can’t back those 2 up as well (although I can cite their support for enviromental protection, which was one of Mark’s compliants), so we’ll leave it at the 4 I’ve mentioned.
Jim – the only reason the ONLY REASON that Bush 2 began VSE was because of the Columbia accident. Any president had to react to that situation. While VSE was decent, the ESAS, which is the long term impact of the Bush Administration when it comes to Space Policy, is horrible. As I said – if this is the situation when Mr. Bush is backing something, frankly, I’d do without.
Also, an adminstration isn’t (or at least I don’t) judged on what it proposes – it’s judged on what it does. Bush 2 made big talk about changing Social Security, but that went nowhere. The same thing applies to SEI – that went nowhere, and Bush 1 balked at the cost himself.
Finaly, Clinton did do a major space initative – The X-33 and VentureStar program. I don’t deny that it ended effectively in complete failure, but then, again, look at how successful SEI was. There were numerious small things done in each, both good and bad.
As I said, the truth is, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2 really didn’t care about space.
now for the interesting question. supportive of space or not, when will there be a presidential candidate who DOES NOT see NASA and its programs as a centerpiece of the entire space policy ?
Ferris – I’m not sure how one can cite Clinton as a space supporter. NASA’s budget was slashed by about a billion during the early part of his administration and only started to recover after the Gingrich revolution. His inclusion of Russia as a space station partner, while politically astute, has had mixed results otherwise. X 33, as previously stated, was a disaster. Some of the seeds of the Columbia disaster were sown during the Clinton years. And there was almost zero support for commercial space.
Bush 1’s SEI was killed by Congressional Democrats. Not cited by anyone is Bush 1’s support for the DC-X.
Bush 2’s VSE has already been cited (and it is not a disaster, unlike some of the internet chattering class maintain.) But uncited so far is Bush 2’s great support for commercial space. COTS, the liscensing of technology like transhab that has been such a help for Bigelow’s operation, and so on.
kert – I submit that the 2012 election will be different, at least when it comes to space policy. It depends a lot in terms of what happens in the industry, but I think, given the way things are moving forward, 2012 will be a sea change when it comes to a change in space policy. Multiple companies, including those that are fully financed, should be operating sub-orbital tourist vehicles. In addition, SpaceX will have been proven successful (or it won’t), and Sundancer will be in orbit, theoretically with people.
As I said, this all really depends on the industry. I expect 2009-2010 to be a kind of make or break timeframe for the industry.
My 2 cents anyway
Mark, first, I cited MS. Clinton when I was talking to you. I cite this article, thank you very much. Ms Clinton has held a space forum – so far the only canadate to really have any sort of discussion on space.
With regard to the Clinton administration – We’ve already had a discussion about it’s support for commerical space (I know you want to dismiss it, but multiple people have pointed it out – in the comments from that story in fact), and since you won’t aknowledge it, I frankly, see no point in rehashing old ground with you.
Bush 1 balked at the price talk of SEI himself – it wasn’t just Congressional Dems. And regardless, it was still a failure, since nothign came from it. It was as much, or even a worse failure, than X-33, since it sent manned flight into a tailspin that took it many years for manned flight to re-enter the arena of exploration.
Finally, VSE isn’t the major Bush space initiative – ESAS is, IMHO. VSE is lofty goals, which are nice, but are really nothing more than “mom and apple pie”, if you will. The real devil is in the details, which is what ESAS deals with. And yes, it will prove to be a complete mess. Multiple people have cited the problems with ESAS, and not just liberals and people of left wing political persuassion – just look at the one recent posting on Rand’s website.
As I said, I really don’t see any reason to debate with you, since you don’t want to debate – you want to preach and argue, which doesn’t really solve anything. So don’t expect to many real responses in the future.
And in that article, many people pointed out the Alternative Access program, which supported commerical space.
I have no intention of getting into a shouting match with you, since multple people have pointed out that COTS is the first time that Nasa has gone to the commerical sector.
As for
Mark, on the other hand, demonstrates his hatred of Democrats virtually every time he posts.
Well, for various values of “virtually every.” Many of his posts have nothing to do with Democrats. Like that one…
And I (presumably like he) still await an actual rebuttal to what he…you know…actually wrote.
I don’t doubt that a new democrat presidency would support manned spaceflight. The problem is the limited manned spaceflight that they are willing to support.
The fact is, there isn’t much enthusiasm for manned space exploration among the democratic party. A new democratic administration will likely see a return to the Clinton policy of only supporting manned missions to low Earth orbit and no farther. Exploration will be restricted to robots, and manned flight limited to symbolic efforts intended to bolster international relations like the ISS.
The fact is, there isn’t much enthusiasm for manned space exploration among the democratic party.
Actually, Brad, I’d argue that there isn’t much enthusiasm for manned spaceflight, period. I go back to my point about Bush 2 – ESAS, which is the real space policy under Bush2, is in real trouble. But the only reason it happend was because Columbia happened. Had Columbia not happened, I have apsolutely no doubt that there wouldn’t have been any major policy changes when it came to Nasa. Bush 2 had a majority in Congress for 6 years (more or less), and he didn’t make any noise about new policies when it came to Nasa (and space in general) until AFTER Columbia. For an even clear picture of this, look at the fact that while he was Governor of Texas, he didn’t visit Johnson Space Center once.
If we were to do a counter-factual history, and assume that Al Gore, or John McCain, or Bill Bradley had won the 2000 election, I’d be damn surprized if things would be much different, with regards to what came out after Columbia.
The pull back from manned exploration I’d argue was a direct result from the failure of SEI. Had Perot won that election, I expect he’d have done about the same.
The fact is, realistically, there have been 2 presidents who made major pushes for manned spaceflight, and neither of them were for the ideals of manned exploration, or more importantly, colonization. Those 2 were Kennedy (and LBJ, sort of) and Regean. Kennedy/LBJ were only interested in it as an extention of the cold war, through the moon race. And Regean was only interested because he saw it as an extention of the battlefield (also tied to the Cold War).
Bush Sr did nothing with SEI – the whole point of SEI was because it was the 25th anniversery of walking on the moon, and we felt we needed to do something (without realizing the actual situation).
As I said in the earilier post – the way to get either party to really notice is for a manned space industry to take off. And I think that will happen, and when it does, much like when the internet took off, so many politicians will situp and take notice, and they will race to help the industry.
FV your history is bunk.
The death of SEI under Bush the elder had more to do with a hostile democratic party controlled congress than it did from Bush indifference.
VSE was a real break from past NASA policy. There is no reason to believe that embracing manned space exploration and retiring the Shuttle program would have come out of a different administration than Bush’s in the wake of the Columbia disaster. If anything the most likely result would have been the same as the aftermath of the Challenger — nothing more than building a replacement Shutttle orbiter and carrying on interminably with the shuttle program.
As far as enthusiasm goes, in fact I would say that since the glory days of Apollo the democratic party has been the base of operations for those political factions which are openly hostile to manned space exploration, manned spaceflight, and NASA in general.
Even if republicans are indifferent, better them than hostile democrats.
Brad, I could site numerous counter examples – In fact, I’ve already cited some (and, I might add, it was a Democratic state that really embraced space tourism, not a Republician).
As for assuming that they would’ve just built a replacement orbiter and moved on – the politics of 2003 were very different than 1986. In 86, the shuttle was still fairly new, and there was still some thought that it might have a great flight record.
By 2003, it was clear to everyone that the shuttle hadn’t lived up to expectations, and we needed to do something new. And with the death of 7 more astronauts, it just became a question of what.
As for VSE, well, ideally speaking, VSE isn’t too bad, but the execution of VSE (the important part), which is ESAS, has been terrible. I can quote countless people on the problems of ESAS, which, again, is the important part of VSE.
If your a republican, and want to support republicians, that fine – I have no problem (well, other than obvious). But don’t claim that a majority (or even a large minority) of Democrats are hostile to manned spaceflight.
Actually Ferris is also wrong on a number of other points of history, not the least of which was that Bush Sr. announcement of SEI came on the 20th not the 25th anniversary of Apollo.
Something like VSE was in the works within the Bush administration from its very beginning. One thing that delayed it was the necessity of getting NASA’s financial house in order, horribly neglected under Clinton and for which O’Keefe was hired. The VSE announcement also came almost a year after Columbia. So the idea that Columbia crashed and then Bush Jr. said, “Aha, must go a new direction” is ludicrous. The new direction was already in the works; Columbia just gave it a new urgency.
“Something like VSE was in the works within the Bush administration from its very beginning.”
What exactly does that mean?
“The VSE announcement also came almost a year after Columbia.”
Yeah, they had to create it. Too bad they haven’t seen fit to fund it.
“Yeah, they had to create it. Too bad they haven’t seen fit to fund it.”
I cannot imagine that 3.9 billion in the next fiscal year constitiutes no funding.
1. Jeff posts an interesting article from a man who is concerned about the space program for let’s say “interesting” reasons
2. I point out that as long as NASA is part of politics, you’ll never get it funded completely or rationally. People would rather name-call and fight than explore and learn. Politicians want votes, period. Perhaps if you could find 10 million voting martians out there, we’d already be on Mars.
3. The room spends the next 30 comments name-calling and fighting over who has the best political party.
QED
Daniel – Can you imagine anything as important as the exploration of space ever being free of politics? Even if one goes down the road of libertarian fantasy, abolish NASA, totally taking the space program private, there would still be politics.
So the idea that Columbia crashed and then Bush Jr. said, “Aha, must go a new direction†is ludicrous. The new direction was already in the works; Columbia just gave it a new urgency.
And of course, Mark, you talked to people who personally participated in these events and they told you this – yes?
Well, fantasies aside, the politicization of NASA is the problem, admit it or deny it.
Of course there’s always politics in everything. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that various endeavors have various degrees of politics. Isn’t there some way to move Space Exploration into a place where there is less bickering and competition for resources?
I guess the question is: do you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution? Because from where I stand (the middle), 40 more years of each party pointing fingers at the other one doesn’t look too productive in terms of advancing space exploration.
I’m simply trying to ask a practical question: is it practical to have the national system of politics determine where we go in space? From the track record the answer clearly seems to be “no”. Every new administration, if we’re lucky, we get empty promises that the congress and the next administration will shoot down in due time. It’s like Charlie Brown and the football. I’m not trying to be cynical, simply observing history and drawing what I believe to be fairly obvious conclusions.
Now we can talk about putting space exploration somewhere where practicality matters, or we can continue arguing for a few more decades. Up to us, really.
It seems to me not simply an issue of left/right supportiveness of manned space flight, but rather how each side views the inherent national interest of that activity.
For example, Reagan was a big supporter of manned space flight, but that was perhaps as much due to his view that the activity was of vital importance in fighting the cold war (hence Space Station Freedom) as anything else.
Of course presidents from the two parties would view national interests differently, but much of what is discussed above about Reagan/Bush1/Clinton/Bush2 needs to be viewed in terms of external events that determined national interest at the time.
The way I see it, unless there is an unarguably vital national interest in manned space flight, it will always be subject to lack of political support. Contrast this with unmanned spaceflight which has clearly demonstrated both its economic and scientific utility.
I would not be surprised to see the next administration, republican or democrat, cut back on manned space activities. But, hopefully, this is also the timeframe in which NewSpace will begin to prove itself. Then, manned spaceflight will depend not solely on national interest, but also on economic and personal interest. That’s when things will get…interesting.
Daniel – on this Mark is partially right – human beings are political animals, and will always be a part of anything we do.
But the fact is, we’ve entered a new day in terms of politics. Thanks to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’reily, Sean Hannity, the rest of right wing talk radio (which is most of talk radio), as well as
Fox NewsFaux Noise channel, and their lackies that are actually in politics, like Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Bill Frist, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Roger Ailes, Clarence Thomas, Scalia – countless others, through outright lies and decent, through fear and intimidation, they have poisoned the discorse in this country. They convinced the media that to be “balanced”, they had to adopted conservative (and for that matter GOP) talking points. That a country that has been a center-left country was in fact an extreme far right country. That government, and law are inherently bad. And that there are always at least 2 sides to an issue – regardless whether that issue is a fact or not.And then the two events that catapulted them into a near organsmic state – The false election of GWB, and 9/11. Those two events changed everything – countless average Americans, both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, came together to be Americans. But not this administration, nor the right wing noise machine, and the right wing media. They saw it only as a weapon to attack those who
disagreed with them. And so, to quote Keith Olbermann
And because of that, over 3000 Americans have died, needlessly, in Iraq, the city of New Orleans was practically destroyed, and the US constitution has been trampled on. And thats why stupid stories that hurt liberals and the Democratic party get front page treatment (John Edward’s haircut) but stupid stories that hurt the Republicians get ignored (Bush’s past drug use).
You’ll notice, Daniel, that I had no intention of turning this into a real political discussion – Gagnon’s comments were the comments of a fool, and there really isn’t any point in arguing with someone who is clearly a fool. (and I still want to know if the rings tell where we’ve hidden the sharks with Fricking laser beams
). But Mark (and Mark really isnt’ alone in this, but he is the most egregious), who really is a member of the Vast Right wing media and noise machine, decided it must (like everything) be used as a political weapon. Thats why, despite evidence to the contrary, people claim that had John Kerry gotten elected, he would’ve canceled all of Nasa (or at least all human operations)
And I for one am tired of the lies, the deceit, and the bullying, and the utter bullshit that comes from it (which, again, includes him). And I won’t tolerate the smears that come from it, and by extention, him (and those like him). Mark, like the rest of the right wing media and noise machine, thinks it/he holds a monopoly, not only on convictions, but on facts again, despite evidence to the contrary. And, as I said, I won’t tolerate it.
The fact is, the real failure of both the SEI and X-33 programs can be directly related to the failure of 1 thing – Nasa as an agency. It asked for more than was realistically available for SEI, and it tried to make X-33 more than it should’ve been. Yes, countless politicians played a role in it, but the failure was really Nasa’s fault.
But that crimps Mark (and again, a few other people, and even more so the Right Wing’s media) style, because it means that liberals/the poiltical left/Democrats, aren’t the cause of all problems. And so they invent shit. And they expect people to just eat it up.
Well, I won’t. I stopped a long time ago. It made me sick then, and its made many people sick. If they want someone to eat their shit, they can eat it themselves. I don’t want it.
anthonares,
Thats why I think the 2012 election will be different when it comes to space policy. The 2008 election might even be somewhat different, but I rather doubt it.
Your right, once manned spaceflight moves beyond the “national interest” sphere, and into the economic and personal sphere, the game changes vastly.
Ferris – That last post, from the President being “falsely elected” to my own self being part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was–well–breath taking. (g)
Mark,
what can I say – people can find inspiration even in what are piles of crap.
One other thing mark,
If you think your not part of the right wing media – then your being delusional, as well as full of it.
Well Ferris, I don’t know you from Jack, but I gotta say that was the longest rant I’ve read in some time. And to make it even funnier, your point seemed to be how you hated the way politics was done in the country. The irony.
Look — vote for Kerry, Gore, Clinton — whomever makes you sleep well at night. Have at each other with who’s got the losing party and your lists of people you think are bad and your various versions of history. But please, please, could you please wake up and realize that bickering like this doesn’t advance space exploration at all? Who cares which party is right or wrong — at least as far as space exploration goes? What can be the point of saying that we’d be better with your guy as president instead of the other guy? It all seems childish to me.
In my opinion, anthonares was exactly correct, with one change. Where he said “The way I see it, unless there is an unarguably vital national interest in manned space flight, it will always be subject to lack of political support.”
I would say instead that the issue is an unarguable vital POLITICAL interest. That’s what you get when you have a nationalized space program. Money goes where the political interest is. JFK could make hay from fear of the Rooskies. Reagan with the missile shield. GW’s effort seems a little different in that I think it’s just a lame attempt at finding a common vision for what NASA is supposed to be doing, anyway. (A vision which the two parties would never let us adopt, no matter who proposed it or what it was) So unless you’ve got some kind of plan for an unarguable political interest in either manned or unmanned space exploration, the whole game reduces to who-gets-the-pork.
My opinion, for what it’s worth. My decoder ring is broken, and nobody bothered to send me some sharks with freakin’ laser beams, so I’m probably out of the loop.
Ferris, ignoring the rest of the nonsense you wrote, if you think that quoting Keith “911 was a government conspiracy” Olbermann helps your credibility in a serious political discussion, you don’t have any idea how far out in (literally) in left field you are.
Daniel – I admit the irony – I do hate it. But I also hate the fact that anti-gravity hasn’t been developed. But I get around that problem in my life, and deal with that irony as well. To quote someone I heard once “You can spit at the sky for being blue, but it’ll still be blue.”
The current view of bi-partisan right now is that the left must totally surrender to the right, on any issue. I can cite countless examples of this. Its not my side that has to change.
And, as I said before, I do hate it. Your right, the bickering, the fighting – all that means wasted time, wasted money, and wasted lives. It means I have to wait one day longer before full colonization to happen. But I won’t surrender anything and everything to the whims of the right and the Republican party. My self-estim won’t allow, my pride in my country won’t allow it, and my commitment to humanity won’t allow it. To quote Keith Olbermann again,
When the right/conservatives and the Republican party are ready to actually dealmake, and cross the isle, we will be already. But deal makign isn’t total surrender. And that is what the right and the Republician party (and espcially the right wing media) want.
If you want an example of actual deal making, and moving beyond politics, it has happened – look at some of my postings at Dailykos – In at least 2 articles, I’ve cited my agreement with Rand Simberg with regards to launch costs, and Ares I. (I’ll bet Rand never expected to get cited at Dailykos).
With regards to how to move it beyond politics permantly, I think you, I, and anthonares have all pointed the way to move space beyond politics (or more so than it currently is) – It needs to be more than a simple national program. Politicains need to realize that space policy doesn’t begin and end with Nasa. Individual people must take ownership of the issue of spaceflight.
And the best way for that to happened is the continued push for its development in the private sector. Thats why I am so supportive of private companies pursuing manned flight, like Orbital Outfitters, Armadillo Aerospace, SpaceX, Xcor, just to name a few. Thats why I am trying to raise awareness about it over at dailykos, as well as other places – when you tell people what is happening, and what could happen, their perceptions of space change. It would be like the Internet, all over again – an explosion of everyone wanting to be involved.
When that happens, as I’ve said, the game changes. Alternatively, we could see a return to sanity, and actually have a back and for dialoge on what is good for our country, and deal make. Frankly though, for a vairety of reasons, I’ll bet on the former rather than the latter.
Rand,
You wanna cite that please?
Oh, please, Ferris.
You must not watch much. Good for you if the case.
Rand,
Olbermann has never once claimed that the government caused 911. Yes, there are people who have, but he isn’t one of them. At least I’ve never seen it.
Furthermore, I do know how far left I am. Rather, its you who don’t realize how much you are in right winger land, and how far left the American populace is.
The current view of bi-partisan right now is that the left must totally surrender to the right, on any issue.
That’s hilarious, Ferris. Did you post this from Bizarro World? It’s certainly not the view of the mainstream media.
Given that the level of discourse here appears unsalvageable, I am closing comments for this post.