PDA

View Full Version : The Creation of The WSE!



Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-29, 09:47 PM
I think that countries should create a World Space Exploration center kind of thing like NASA. but this is global. It would kinda be like the United Nations but this is astronomy. I mean think about it, a global space community, the budget will increase in size TRMENDOUSLY! The knowledge spread will cause more ideas, more theories, more experimentation!

I mean think about it. What would have happened if Russia and the U.S would have teamed up in the space race? Would we have the current space shuttle? would we be using the same fuel?

but of course this is for the country to decide whether they want to take the risk; wait let me replace that word; whether they want to invest in something that has been proven to show 100% benefit!

Please voice whether you agree or disagree or the possible benefits or dangers of such a program

(Oh yeah feel free to name it first)

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-29, 10:03 PM
If Russia and the U.S. teamed up for the Space Race, there wouldn't have BEEN a space race; the entire point was that they were racing each other. There was an underlying current of warfare, and the idea was that the first to go over a certain level was much deadlier than the other nation; you can't quite ally like that.

And that's the reason I think that a "global" NASA would not work. The UN is bad enough, and that's just getting people to agree in political arenas. I imagine budgeting and compliance between nations would be a headache to maintain.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-29, 10:08 PM
my personaly view is that the idea is good but the technical and longistics* are complicated by im still in favor of a world space program.

and if you say budgeting and compliance would be a headache then how about all the other things that cause headaches? i mean NASA alone has its own problems managing, i mean they're not perfect

and no offence, but you make it sound as if people of different countries canoot get along together....

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-29, 10:40 PM
Have you even seen how long it takes the UN to make a single decision? And even then, there's often much disagreement. Also, how many countries DO get along perfectly, with no problems, as opposed to countries that often disagree on many things?

Fr. Wayne
2006-Jan-29, 11:06 PM
Hey, don't let me stop you. Just don't tax me over it and I promise to say nice things about all the benefits you give us like teflon, and ......well teflon.

Eckelston
2006-Jan-29, 11:09 PM
Have you even seen how long it takes the UN to make a single decision? And even then, there's often much disagreement.

That may be true if you are talking about the Security Council or the General Assembly. But the UN has several independent agencies, like the UNICEF, UNHCR, WHO etc., that seem to work ok and certainly don't require direct agreement from the member states for their day-to-day decisions.

Fr. Wayne
2006-Jan-30, 12:09 AM
If the U.S. don't lead it, it won't happen. Note that our shuttle crews have been representing nations to build a world-wide interest. Venezuela went nuts when the White Sox won the World Series (sorry NY'ers) all because of Ozzie Guillen. Same for future shuttle flights I would expect.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-30, 12:19 AM
i agree with wayne;....... about the sox part

GO CHICAGO! GO CUBS! i mean.................sox.....*woot*

azazul
2006-Jan-30, 02:24 AM
I think that we should create one and that it should be divided into parts which have control over specific interests. Such as a division for manned exploration, a division for planetary probes, a division for satellites, etc. Each division could be allocated a certain amount of resources that they can choose what to do with. This might reduce arguments about decisions.

novaderrik
2006-Jan-30, 03:23 AM
if we did have a global space agency, all the other member countries would expect the US to pay all the bills and take all the risks, then get mad at us for not paying all the bills and taking all the risks...

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-30, 04:17 AM
azazul i think having different departments is kinda the baisc principals of organization. NASA has it, businesses have departments, stores have isles, etc, etc.

and im almost sure that the US would not be expected to do everything because it would be global. it would obviously spread out.

novaderrik
2006-Jan-30, 05:02 AM
if there was an international space agency, it would only be possible because of the research and real world experience of the already spacefaring nations..
in other words, the rest of the world would be benefitting from our blood, sweat, and tears over the last 4 decades. and all i bet most nations would contribute would be a few astronauts to be launched up on vehicles that we design and launch- much like the "manned space programs" of some countries out there now.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-30, 05:06 AM
There IS an international space agency, it's called ESA.
The last time I checked, (just now) it had 17 members
and 1 cooperating state (Canada).
It's budget is 2.9 billion, and it is doing quite well. :whistle:

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-30, 05:24 AM
interesting...........but if other countries cannot contribute scientific research they could at least provide financial support and receive credit

or this agency could have a special training school where newcommers are educated and prepared so everyone is up to date and makes an equal contribution.

i think that most of you are viewing this as different countries in different groups in one building dived into different rooms

but what the way i want you to visualize this is a group of people; a couple are asian, one hispanic, one british, a middle eastern, a canadian, and an american talking about an upcomming launch about the pros and cons of sending a probe to andromeda or something of the sort.

i think this sort of thing cuold be extremely beneficial because we would have more manpower (ideas) and more financial backup.

Fr. Wayne
2006-Jan-30, 01:05 PM
interesting..........

or this agency could have a special training school where newcommers are educated and prepared so everyone...

but what the way i want you to visualize this is a group of people; a couple are asian, one hispanic, one british, a middle eastern, a canadian, and an american talking about an upcomming launch about the pros and cons of sending a probe to andromeda or something of the sort.

i think this sort of thing cuold be extremely beneficial because we would have more manpower (ideas) and more financial backup.

Ok with me... First we get an abandoned warehouse on the West side of Chicago, then we put the Soutside Irish in charge of security, then only nations who have franchises at Dunkin' Donuts are allowed a sponsor's office. Chicago' Finest will provide all the capital we need-- no taxes necessary. And we should be on the Moon, for a practice run by 2012. :lol:

TravisM
2006-Jan-30, 03:20 PM
Well, let's see: Andromeda, M31 > 2 Million Light Years away (1.89210568 × 10 ^ 22 m = 18,921,056,800,000,000,000 km ). Speed of fastest probe ever: 75600 kph. That's only about 28,551,662,700 years.. 28 and 1/2 BILLION years travel time...
[Edit To Add]
Ok, so maybe we team up to send a probe to a place where we can get to in our life-time. saturn.jpl.nasa.gov

Fr. Wayne
2006-Jan-30, 09:05 PM
to send a probe to a place where we can get to in our life-time

I still like to get to the Library. Can we make a pit stop?

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-31, 12:15 AM
Well, let's see: Andromeda, M31 > 2 Million Light Years away (1.89210568 10 ^ 22 m = 18,921,056,800,000,000,000 km ). Speed of fastest probe ever: 75600 kph. That's only about 28,551,662,700 years.. 28 and 1/2 BILLION years travel time...
[Edit To Add]
Ok, so maybe we team up to send a probe to a place where we can get to in our life-time. saturn.jpl.nasa.gov

hey but still, andromeda is still comming towards us, so we just have to wait some million, or so years..........or we can use our imaginations now and travel their this very instant:lol:

Fr. Wayne
2006-Jan-31, 01:01 AM
we can use our imaginations now and travel their this very instant

Now you've got it. Books can do that to people. Can we really go to Andromeda? Only if you write the book. So far many have tried. Even Kilgore, but he keeps crumpling them up and tossing them in the garbage bin outside the National Acedemy of the Arts Building.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Jan-31, 03:58 AM
Now you've got it. Books can do that to people. Can we really go to Andromeda? Only if you write the book. So far many have tried. Even Kilgore, but he keeps crumpling them up and tossing them in the garbage bin outside the National Acedemy of the Arts Building.

did you say that i should write a book? i agree my equation goes

write book = retire at age 19

............


then come out of retirement a month later

jkmccrann
2006-Jan-31, 03:21 PM
I agree in principle that there should be some sort of global Space Agency, responsible for in some way administering and harmonising the exploration of Space and the rights of corporations, governments, private citizens etc. up in Space, modeled in some way along the lines of the United Nations. And because of that I voted yes to your poll.

But.

We're not ready for that.

Trying to set such a body up currently would instead of encouraging development and utilisation of Space - merely provide a bureaucratic roadblock to true innovation and progress. In the 21st century, and particularly the first few decades of the 21st century that we're experiencing now, Space does not need excessive regulation, it needs freedom from that sort of thing.

To be honest, from my kind of point of view, I would envisage such a body is only really necessary at a time when we can set it up at a location not here on Earth - ie The Moon. When it is a viable option to set up such a Body on the Moon, which may be in perhaps 100-150 years time (erring slightly on the side of optimism), that is when we'll be ready for it.

Unfortunately, given the slow rate of progress over the past 30 years, it is currently an idea slightly ahead of its time.

To kind of buttress that argument. When one thinks of the United Nations, we know it was set-up in 1945, as a successor of sorts to the League of Nations, set-up in 1919 by Woody Wilson and friends. The thing is, the globe had pretty much been comprehensively mapped by 1750-1800. So it took around 150-200 years for us to require a global organisation to try and keep peace and harmony in the world after we'd actually already pretty much mapped the entire world basically out.

Comparing that to Space, and I would say in terms of mapping out the Solar System we're about where we were in the late 18th century in terms of the mapping of the Earth. We pretty much know the Solar System back to front but we're still discovering interesting things out on the periphery - past Neptune, that add to our knowledge. Our discoveries out past Neptune kind of equate to our mapping here on Earth of a place like Antarctica. Something that stretched well into the 20th century before we had a comprehensive map of the place.

So I guess you have to ask yourself, did we need the UN in 1900? And the answer is obviously no, and that's the same reason we don't need a Global Solar body at the moment,we're simply nowhere near ready for it.

Fr. Wayne
2006-Feb-01, 02:11 AM
I agree in principle that there should be some sort of global Space Agency, responsible for in some way administering and harmonising the exploration of Space and the rights of corporations, governments, private citizens etc. up in Space, modeled in some way along the lines of the United Nations. And because of that I voted yes to your poll.

But.

We're not ready for that.

So I guess you have to ask yourself, did we need the UN in 1900? And the answer is obviously no, and that's the same reason we don't need a Global Solar body at the moment,we're simply nowhere near ready for it.

Before 1900 men like Carnegie et al., leaders like the Czar of Russia, the Emperor of Austria-Hungary did convene a congress for just such an effort. Had it been backed by the Teddy Roosevelts, we may have possibly never had a world war in the first place. No use though crying over spilt milk, it's all water under the bridge, kay sera sera.....

Doodler
2006-Feb-01, 02:15 AM
My only point of disagreement is to aim your attention at the multibillion dollar nightmare sitting in orbit now...

That, my friend, is international cooperation at its...well...nevermind... :wall:

Fr. Wayne
2006-Feb-01, 02:22 AM
:doh: I forgot all about it. Hey, at least somebody would be watching if all of a sudden we go up in smoke. Are there any girls up there? No?:wall:

P.S. I may have to take back my teflon quote above.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-01, 04:22 AM
oh yeah, i iss, ............um what has it actually accomplished anyways?

*ducks under cover for outburst of responses*

publiusr
2006-Feb-01, 11:36 PM
Only if they make me the Chief Designer of Earth.

"Look, Griffin. I love the Stick--but you are to build HLLV first, got it? Okay, China--I want you to keep using hypergolics, R-56. Qatar--you do the RLV

Fr. Wayne
2006-Feb-02, 12:23 AM
You are hearby officially "Chief." Now get at least one girl up there, pronto.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-03, 12:21 AM
"If I was the chief of the world, I'd turn everyone into candy!"

John Dlugosz
2006-Feb-03, 10:54 PM
I mean think about it. What would have happened if Russia and the U.S would have teamed up in the space race?

Nothing. It was the competition that drove our effort.

The future of space is in private enterprise, and being able to make profit. Bigger government just means more arguing.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-03, 11:09 PM
Nothing. It was the competition that drove our effort.

The future of space is in private enterprise, and being able to make profit. Bigger government just means more arguing.

i know the term space race, means an actual 'race' but if in the midst-end of it, if they teamed up things might have calmed down a bit and they could have been more efficent.

like i said,
Would we have the current space shuttle? would we be using the same fuel?

Andromeda321
2006-Feb-04, 03:14 AM
In all honesty I don't really see the point to having a WSE because you're essentially just going to foot the bill to a few nations anyway. Look at the ISS.
also Knowledge_Seeker, had they teamed up I would have bet you anything we wouldn't have gone to the moon. Whenever there's competition in a field you actually get more efficiency/ lower costs because people have to be, whereas when you get a monopoly on a market there's no reason for that to happen.

Knowledge_Seeker
2006-Feb-05, 01:29 AM
I would have bet you anything we wouldn't have gone to the moon.

Im not allowed to gamble.........:hand:


Whenever there's competition in a field you actually get more efficiency/ lower costs because people have to be, whereas when you get a monopoly on a market there's no reason for that to happen.

I agree

Bobunf
2006-Feb-09, 01:00 AM
There IS an international space agency, it's called ESA.
The last time I checked, (just now) it had 17 members
and 1 cooperating state (Canada).
It's budget is € 2.9 billion, and it is doing quite well. :whistle:

I think the $2.9 billion is significant. The EU and Canada have an economy and per capita income about equivalent to that of the US. NASA’s budget is about $16 billion. It doesn’t seem to me that ESA is an agency that’s doing all that well if they are able to garner less than 20% as much money as NASA. Getting the budget is part of the job of a space agency, and ESA isn’t doing nearly as well as NASA; and the amount of money people contribute is a measure of their confidence in the agency.

When it comes to outcomes measured in successful missions:

Mercury: NASA 2, ESA 0
Venus: NASA 7, ESA, 0
Moon: NASA about 25, ESA 2
Mars: NASA 11, ESA 1
Jupiter: NASA 7, ESA 0
Saturn: NASA 3, ESA 0
Uranus: NASA 1, ESA 0
Neptune: NASA 1, ESA 0
Pluto: NASA 1, ESA 0

Manned missions into Space: NASA about 100, ESA 0

On the basis of results, 18 cooperating countries haven't done nearly as well as one on its own.

Bob

Launch window
2006-Feb-09, 01:26 AM
Also, how many countries DO get along perfectly, with no problems, as opposed to countries that often disagree on many things?

it seems like a nice idea but would it work in reality, but would it work
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=12678
discussed here

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Feb-09, 02:16 AM
I think the $2.9 billion is significant. The EU and Canada have an economy and per capita income about equivalent to that of the US. NASA’s budget is about $16 billion. It doesn't seem to me that ESA is an agency that’s doing all that well if they are able to garner less than 20% as much money as NASA. Getting the budget is part of the job of a space agency, and ESA isn't doing nearly as well as NASA; and the amount of money people contribute is a measure of their confidence in the agency.

When it comes to outcomes measured in successful missions:

Mercury: NASA 2, ESA 0
Venus: NASA 7, ESA, 0
Moon: NASA about 25, ESA 2
Mars: NASA 11, ESA 1
Jupiter: NASA 7, ESA 0
Saturn: NASA 3, ESA 0
Uranus: NASA 1, ESA 0
Neptune: NASA 1, ESA 0
Pluto: NASA 1, ESA 0

Manned missions into Space: NASA about 100, ESA 0

On the basis of results, 18 cooperating countries haven't done nearly as well as one on its own.

Bob
Re budgeting: I think that is partly because of tradition.
NASA started off with some huge projects, and in budgeting
to there is such a thing as inertia.
The issue of national pride gets diluted with ESA, so there
is less of an incentive on that front.
Also ESA started later, and doesn't have to support
the Space Shuttle.

Re your numbers: You didn't mention Earth/Space science missions.
Which is the bulk of all unmanned space missions.
You didn't mention Huygens.
Claiming a successful mission to Pluto is a bit premature.
And what is your definition for the nationality
of a manned space mission?
There are plenty of missions flown by ESA astronauts.
And there is of course the ISS.

Duane
2006-Feb-09, 10:29 PM
I think the ISS is an example of both the good that such an agency could achieve, and the bad that could occur in such an agency.

There is alot of disagreement right now between the US and the other international partners regarding the ISS. Things between the US and Russia are getting so bad that Russia is threatening to stop sending US astronauts to the ISS aboard their Soyuz spacecraft. The argument (surpirse surprise) is mostly politcal (Russia's support of Iran) and partly financial ( Soyuz is expensive). Because NASA cannot legally purchase technical items from Russia (like spacecraft) combined with the problems the US has, and will continue to have, with the Shuttle, Russia is in a unique position to say no to any further US astronauts, leaving the US in the unique position of having an orbiting station they can't get to. Further, they can't stop anyone else (well, without shooting down a launcher or the station--imagine the outcry!) from going there.

The ESA and CSA are also somewhat miffed with the US decisions to scale back the ISS and abandon both the Habitat and "lifeboat" projects, with public comments to the effect that they lived up to their part of the bargain and feel somewhat like they were misled by the US when they were asked to participate. Remember too, NASA did not accept participation from international partners, they came asking for it to save the project from cancellation.

Now, after my doom and gloom, I wish to also state that I fully support a WSA. Despite the difficulties and political interference, I think that the problems will be ironed out without any major fallout. And, afterall, ISS is orbiting, last I heard!