Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: The Case for Space

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    That said, I am happy to see people are writing new serious space advocacy books, even if they aren't for me. Yes, much of it probably has been said already, but I think people are starting to take space development and colonization seriously again, and that is a wonderful thing.
    Just because we space nerds have heard it all before, it might still seem new and fresh to a younger generation. The book is being reported on in mainstream news stories, spreading the concepts and arguments, and re-establishing them in the fickle, goldfishy public memory. So on those merits I think that the book might have a net positive benefit.

    But yes, we need better space popularizers than Zubrin or the current crop of pop-science TV stars.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    Also, if you look at the Asteroid Mining thread, you'll note that many corporations are now realizing there's money to be made there. Starting to invest real dollars into developing practical, affordable plans.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    This might actually be a good argument for SLS. I can't really imagine there would be sufficient political support to kill manned space at this time - too many vested interests.
    That, as I see it, is a good thing. People call it pork. I call it infrastructure and a way to build and keep tribal knowledge in the aerospace community--keeping energetics alive, etc.

    "Today, that space economy—the economy that has resulted from investing in space exploration, space infrastructure, and space-based operations—is measured in billions of dollars."
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3698/1

    "The earlier insult mocking the SLS as the “Senate Launch System” was a backhanded compliment to the two senators (Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas and Bill Nelson from Florida) involved. They took the tools available to keep human space exploration on the national agenda." http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3682/1

    Yet neither ever sat at a CAD/CAM station. Or pushed for Shuttle-derived heavy lift back when it wasn't cool.

    Know who did?

    Robert blanking Zubrin:
    http://www.astronautix.com/a/aresmarsdirect.html

    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    I don't think anyone on this Forum would be unfamiliar with any of the contents of The Case For Space. Most of us have been either hearing or making that case for most of our lives.
    That was "A Case For Mars"

    Where he actually **called** for construction of a shuttle derived heavy lifter that is now nearing a launch date.

    In this newest book:
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3710/1

    --he trashes it and the vendors who built it.

    Zubrin is an ingrate.
    Last edited by publiusr; 2019-May-18 at 08:34 PM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post

    That was "A Case For Mars"

    Where he actually **called** for construction of a shuttle derived heavy lifter that is now nearing a launch date.

    In this newest book:
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3710/1

    --he trashes it and the vendors who built it.

    Zubrin is an ingrate.
    Before I ever heard of Zubrin, I grew up hearing and learning about cases for human space colonization. Going back long before I was born. I read about the massive problems involved, and the many proposed and calculated solutions to those problems. But so far the intractability of human nature has ended up overwhelming all the physical and even financial challenges. We don't go into space because the people who could make it happen mostly don't want it, and convince the public it's a pipe dream, so it doesn't happen.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,516
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    We don't go into space because the people who could make it happen mostly don't want it, and convince the public it's a pipe dream, so it doesn't happen.
    I'm sort of curious but who are the people who don't want it and try to convince people it's a pie dream? Are you talking about governments or entrepreneurs, or scientists? I may be a bit isolated but I don't really recall meeting that many people who are really against exploring space. Of course, there are many who argue that we should prioritize other things above it.
    As above, so below

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    The Nixons and William Proxmires who decide to cut viable and successful programs like Apollo.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    15,432
    There is one line of reasoning I keep encountering from (some) people who are against a space program: when a space mission costs 1 billion dollars, they seem to think we are shooting 1 billion dollars into space. In reality, we are shooting very little material value into space; the vast majority of that 1 billion is spent on labour here on earth, providing jobs, careers and technological advancement. Just like those social programs they'd rather see the money go to. And of course we must set priorities and be careful with the use of truly rare resources, nobody argues we shouldn't.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicolas View Post
    Just like those social programs they'd rather see the money go to.
    Many motives for diverting those funds exist. In practice, most money cut from space development goes into pockets or other big budget items.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,319
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    The Nixons and William Proxmires who decide to cut viable and successful programs like Apollo.
    You said it.

    Back to Zubrin...a comment from Dwayne Day:

    "He is actually making a distorted case for a legitimate argument, that having clearly defined difficult goals results in innovation. So you could build a better case around this without resorting to bizarre, easily refutable claims about past technological progress."

    "In another chapter, he complains about a lack of technological innovation since the 1980s, claiming that if the pace of past innovation had been maintained we would have everything from flying cars to hypersonic aircraft by now."

    "I've observed Zubrin over many years and seen him make this argument many times. In fact, back in the 1990s he used to claim that there had been no technological innovation since 1898 and 'the closure of the American frontier.' Yes, not since 1898. It was such an absurd claim then that I could not understand why anybody would take him seriously."



    From the comments section here:
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3710/1
    Last edited by publiusr; 2019-May-24 at 10:38 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    36,827
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    You said it.

    Back to Zubrin...a comment from Dwayne Day:

    "He is actually making a distorted case for a legitimate argument, that having clearly defined difficult goals results in innovation. So you could build a better case around this without resorting to bizarre, easily refutable claims about past technological progress."

    "In another chapter, he complains about a lack of technological innovation since the 1980s, claiming that if the pace of past innovation had been maintained we would have everything from flying cars to hypersonic aircraft by now."

    "I've observed Zubrin over many years and seen him make this argument many times. In fact, back in the 1990s he used to claim that there had been no technological innovation since 1898 and 'the closure of the American frontier.' Yes, not since 1898. It was such an absurd claim then that I could not understand why anybody would take him seriously."
    Zubrin sounds like he's got Golden Age Syndrome, bad. Not a helpful attitude for someone who supposedly wants progress.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    11,319
    Heh--I just remembered this post with "The Good Zubrin Fairy"
    http://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthre...18#post1884118

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •