|
Author
|
Topic: Review of US Human Space Flight (Augustine)
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-11-2009 12:04 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
It went in order to place an American on the moon via the US manned space program.
Would it surprise you then to learn that President Kennedy proposed that the U.S. and Soviet Union cooperate on sending humans to the Moon?On September 20, 1963, Kennedy in a address before the United Nations' General Assembly raised the possibility of a "joint expedition to the moon." He said "space offers no problems of sovereignty, [so] why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure?" The President's proposal for a joint expedition to the moon was intended to be a step toward improved Soviet-American relations. The impact of the speech was quite the reverse. Moscow and the Soviet press virtually ignored the U.N. address. Officially, the Soviet government did not comment. In the U.S., the public remarks either strongly supported the idea of a joint flight or equally forcefully opposed it. Had the Soviet leadership responded differently, then the idea that we went to the Moon only to land Americans might seem as foreign today as the idea that we would now turn our back on the international partnerships we have forged over the past 35 years. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-11-2009 01:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
International collaboration is the only way forward. That US-centric view of the world must change and embrace the rest of the world's spacefaring nations. They are pulling their weight - ATV, HTV, Progress, Soyuz have virtually proven themselves to be as reliable as the Shuttle. So imagine where these combined efforts could take us to beyond ISS?
International collaboration may well be the best way forward. Given that the rest of the world's spacefaring nations will continue with their efforts, it makes more sense to me to pool our resources, rather than have each country independently strike out on their own. For example, I'm extremely impressed with China's recent achievements in space, but watching them spend the next decade recreating the US's Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs wouldn't seem to be in anyone's best interests. It would seem to be a better option for them to pool their resources with the rest of the spacefaring nations to build on what has already been done, rather than re-invent the wheel. I'm enough of a realist to acknowledge that there are risks and potential hurdles to be overcome in building and sustaining an international partnership. But it seems foolhardy to go it alone and ignore the contributions of the rest of the world. I think it would be in the United States' best interests to take the role of a senior partner and mentor in humankind's future expansion into space. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-11-2009 02:58 PM
From the National Space Society Statement on "Summary Report of the Review of U.S. Space Flight Plans Committee": The NSS vision is that NASA should be charged with ever expanding the zone of exploration and development beyond Low Earth Orbit while commercial entities then provide operational services to fill in behind that “bubble” as it expands outward. Together these efforts should ultimately lead to settlement of and expansion through space by humanity. I can agree with that. I'm a bit worried about the "Flexible Path" option in the Augustine Commission's report. They talk about this path leading to "about one major event per year", but some of the events they are talking about don't sound all that exciting--or likely to engage the public's interest. People ask why we should return to the moon -- We've been there and it's just dust and rocks. But if we return on a permanent basis, we'll be building stuff worth seeing. Maybe someday we'll be able to look up at the crescent moon and see the lights of cities burning in the darkness of the lunar night. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Would it surprise you then to learn that President Kennedy proposed that the U.S. and Soviet Union cooperate on sending humans to the Moon?
Reading further in The Partnership: The clearest statement of the national attitude toward the Kennedy proposal of a joint moon venture came in December, when Congress passed an appropriations bill carrying the following stipulation:No part of any appropriation made available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration by this Act shall be used for expenses of participating in a manned lunar landing to be carried out jointly by the United States and any other country without consent of the Congress. This basic provision was repeated in the NASA appropriations acts for fiscal years 1964-1966. That was what, in politics, they call a "trial balloon". There is no way Kennedy could have thought that the Soviets would take him up on the offer anyway. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:46 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
For example, I'm extremely impressed with China's recent achievements in space, but watching them spend the next decade recreating the US's Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs wouldn't seem to be in anyone's best interests. It would seem to be a better option for them to pool their resources with the rest of the spacefaring nations to build on what has already been done, rather than re-invent the wheel...
Perhaps you are right, but it is sometimes a useful exercise to put yourself in the position of the Chinese -- looking at their fiscal situation, their geopolitical situation, their military situation, etc -- and ask yourself the following question:What national interest does China serve by tying its fortunes in space to those of the international community, particularly the US? You must try to forget that you are American, British, or whatever other nationality you might be. Try to think like a Chinese statesman who knows that he has in his own national program a truly independent space program unencumbered by international entanglements. If you are that Chinese statesman... what's in it for you? |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jimsz:
The US did not go to the moon for "all mankind" or any other altruistic purpose... The American Taxpayer is plenty concerned who benefits from the space program they fund.
Hear, hear! The US went to the moon in order to gain a victory over the Soviets in the Cold War. "For all mankind" was a nice sentiment, but that is clearly not the reason why we went. Beating the Soviets to the moon contributed to a vital national interest of the US... that is, to demonstrate to all the nations of the world which system (Capitalism vs. Communism) was more capable of accomplishing such a tremendous task. Mission accomplished. At present, there is no vital US national interest served by going to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else. It would be nice to go. It would be really cool to go. But, absent a vital national interest argument, I do not see the US forking out big bucks (beyond current funding) on the space program. So the real question is, how much risk are you willing to accept? International partnerships involve risk -- the partners must all agree on goals, and everyone gets a vote. If someone doesn't like your foreign policy, they take their rocketship and go home. Game over. ...and make that "two" American taxpayers who are plenty concerned about who benefits from the space program they fund. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-11-2009 08:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
There is no way Kennedy could have thought that the Soviets would take him up on the offer anyway.
But it wasn't Kennedy (or the United States) that began the discussion of jointly exploring space: it was the Soviet Union in the aftermath of the John Glenn's successful Mercury flight, as The Partnership documents, quoting Khrushchev: "If our countries pooled their efforts - scientific, technical, and material - to master the universe, this would be very beneficial for the advance of science and would be joyfully acclaimed by all peoples who would like to see scientific achievements benefit man and not be used for "cold war" purposes and the arms race." And yes, that could have been a Soviet trial balloon too, but... While the words of the Soviet leader could have been dismissed as a propaganda ploy, President Kennedy and his White House advisers decided to take the Soviet message at its face value and respond positively. quote:
The US went to the moon in order to gain a victory over the Soviets in the Cold War.
If that was the only goal, we would have stopped with Apollo 11. In fact, we could have probably stopped with Apollo 8 and still declared victory. quote:
...and make that "two" American taxpayers who are plenty concerned about who benefits from the space program they fund.
I am concerned about who benefits from the space program that I help fund, too. I hope it benefits everyone on Earth, not just those fortunate enough to be born in the United States.A true leadership position in any endeavor is best demonstrated by the ability and eagerness to enable others. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 09:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
Leaving out Russia, our international partners have contributed $26 billion for the construction of the ISS. It may only be a little over a quarter of what the United States has paid, but it isn't chump change.
Keep in mind that if the US had built its own station (probably do-able for $100B), it would not have been in the high-inclination orbit required for Soviet spacecraft. Lower inclination orbit = more space shuttle cargo capacity per flight = fewer flights required for construction. Would it be the huge monstrosity that it is now? No. But, even the smaller US-only station would be capable of being de-orbited in 2015-2020. Am I completely against international partnerships? No. Am I concerned that the compromises required to make a multi-national space partnership work would drive the program to prove untenable in the long run, particularly when disagreements occur over strategic goals? Absolutely. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 09:08 PM
While the words of the Soviet leader could have been dismissed as a propaganda ploy, President Kennedy and his White House advisers decided to take the Soviet message at its face value and respond positively. Of course. Kennedy was using the UN stage to publicly take the high ground, as it were. Typical Cold War statesmanship.If the US accepts the Soviet invitation, it looks like the US is conceding the race and joining the "victors". If the Soviets accept the US proposal? Same thing. Did he really think the Soviets were going to open up their program for inspection by and cooperation with the US? I highly doubt it. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-11-2009 09:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If that was the only goal, we would have stopped with Apollo 11. ...I am concerned about who benefits from the space program I help fund, too. I am concerned that it benefits everyone, not just those fortunate enough to be born within the 50 states.
Seriously ...do you think that the fact that we didn't stop at "8" or "11" means that we went to the moon "for all mankind"? And it sounds like you are implying that I would withhold the benefits gained in space from those who cannot afford to go there. Not true. If the US contributes the lion's share of the funding, then the US should be able to set the goals and parameters for the mission. At the same time, the US should seriously consider the needs and desires of nations that would like to contribute to the effort and accommodate those needs and desires as much as possible. But we should not allow the program to be held hostage to the competing priorities of multiple international partners. Clearly, we are not going to agree completely on this issue. I'll step back into the woodwork and try to keep my trap shut for a while.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-11-2009 09:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Seriously ...do you think that the fact that we didn't stop at "8" or "11" means that we went to the moon "for all mankind"?
No, of course not. But I do think that while we went to the Moon to win the space race, the message we conveyed once there was that we are all human. It didn't matter if you were American or Russian or Chinese, as was repeated around the world as Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the Moon, "We did it!" -- and the "we" did not mean the United States only, but "we" the citizens of the planet Earth.Had the Apollo program continued beyond Apollo 17 (and for that matter, Apollos 18 through 20), there is no doubt in my mind that the U.S. would have invited citizens of other countries to fly as crew members, including (and maybe especially) the Soviet Union. quote:
At the same time, the US should seriously consider the needs and desires of nations that would like to contribute to the effort and accommodate those needs and desires as much as possible. But we should not allow the program to be held hostage to the competing priorities of multiple international partners.
On this, we can most certainly agree. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-12-2009 01:05 AM
It's nice to see the acknowledgement that Apollo 11 was NOT done "for all mankind" but purely for flag-waving prestige (to beat the competition). That is the worst possible reason to send humans into space, as the Chinese regime will ultimately find out. So if there is no "national interest" for the USA to send people to other planets, then remain in LEO. I happen to think the betterment of humanity supercedes geopolitics. Alas, no visionary leaders exist. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-12-2009 01:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Perhaps you are right, but it is sometimes a useful exercise to put yourself in the position of the Chinese -- looking at their fiscal situation, their geopolitical situation, their military situation, etc...
I would not presume to speak for the Chinese. What I am suggesting is that we give them the opportunity to join us. If they choose not to, then it is to both of our loses. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-12-2009 01:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Keep in mind that if the US had built its own station (probably do-able for $100B), it would not have been in the high-inclination orbit required for Soviet spacecraft.
Keep in mind that if it hadn't been for the Russians (they are no longer, of course, the "Soviets"), we would have had to abandon the space station after the Columbia disaster. Which, as you know, had nothing to do with the high-inclination orbit--especially since the Columbia had not visited the space station on its final flight. quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Am I concerned that the compromises required to make a multi-national space partnership work would drive the program to prove untenable in the long run, particularly when disagreements occur over strategic goals? Absolutely.
Based on what? You might note that I had originally suggested in this thread that an analysis should be done to determine whether or not the potential problems would make the program untenable before we jump to conclusions and dismiss the idea of an international partnership out of hand. What do you find unreasonable about that? Oh, and I am an American taxpayer who is concerned about who benefits from the space program we fund. I just think it should be all of mankind, and not merely the United States. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-12-2009 01:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I happen to think the betterment of humanity supercedes geopolitics. Alas, no visionary leaders exist.
Well, we don't know that as yet. Let's see what the present administration's reaction to the Augustine Commission's report is first. |
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-12-2009 07:33 AM
Apollo 7's Walter Cunningham has put up a brief overview on his feelings towards the early Augustine Commission's recommendations in his "Personal Views" section of his web site.We all love Walt. Straight and to the point. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-12-2009 08:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by divemaster:
We all love Walt. Straight and to the point.
We do? Maybe then someone might want to remind him that Hubble is NASA-ESA collaboration effort.
|
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-12-2009 10:14 AM
quote:
Originally posted by divemaster:
We all love Walt. Straight and to the point.
I consider myself quite patriotic as well, but what are we to make of this statement from Walt? We have much to give the world, IF we continue to lead and NOT join the masses. A true leader would take the team with him, not leave them on the bench. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-12-2009 12:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
We do? Maybe then someone might want to remind him that Hubble is NASA-ESA collaboration effort.
ESA provided one of the instruments for the telescope, solar cells, and staff to work on the telescope in the US. In return European astronomers were guaranteed at least 15% of the observing time on the telescope. Hubble is actually a good example of international cooperation where the US provided the lion's share of funding, international partners provided a smaller amount, and those international partners received a proportionate return on their investment. I'm all for international cooperation on limited unmanned missions like that -- the more the merrier! So, perhaps Walt should have said the US received 85% of the "... well deserved admiration from the rest of the world for the Hubble telescope ..." -- ESA gets the other 15%.  quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
... A true leader would take the team with him, not leave them on the bench.
I don't think Walt is saying that we should leave teammates on the bench ... unless they choose not to play the game. Inevitably in international partnerships (my experience in this regard is in military international partnerships, but I suspect the dynamics in space cooperation would be similar), the international partners believe that if they are contributing something, they should get an equal vote and equal veto power with those who are contributing much more. It never works out where one partner contributes, say, 80% of the resources and the other 10 partners contribute the remaining 20%, and then the "80% partner" gets 8 votes to the other partners' combined 2. Each international partner wants equal consideration. Oh, well, I said I would be quiet for a while and I wasn't. I'll try again ... ------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE |
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-12-2009 05:18 PM
Remember - Walt's e-mail address is on his site. If you disagree or want to add to his comments, he's more than happy to listen and respond. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 342
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 09-12-2009 05:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Keep in mind that if it hadn't been for the Russians (they are no longer, of course, the "Soviets"), we would have had to abandon the space station after the Columbia disaster...
This is a recurring bit of misinformation, perpetuated by no less than Dr. Crawley on the Augustine panel. Does anyone seriously imagine, if the Russians had never joined ISS, that NASA would have left astronauts aboard Freedom or ISS with no way home in case of an emergency between Shuttle visits? In fact, NASA had always planned to provide a crew return vehicle for Freedom, for crew return in between Shuttle visits. Remember the X-38 ACRV, and before that the various CERV capsule designs? Only after Freedom became ISS and the Russians contributed Soyuz did NASA finally discontinue those efforts. By the way, the X-38 flight unit is still here at Johnson Space Center, sitting out in the elements under a blue (FEMA?) tarp. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-12-2009 06:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by John Charles:
This is a recurring bit of misinformation, perpetuated by no less than Dr. Crawley on the Augustine panel.
John, with respect, the charge as stated was that without the Russians, we would have had to abandon the space station in the wake of Columbia, which is correct.The X-38 was only capable of returning the crew from the station, not launching new crews. So, while the crew aboard would have been capable of safely returning home, the station itself would have been abandoned. And as the ISS was not designed to operate autonomously for extended periods of time (at least not as long as it took us to return the shuttle to flight), then there stood a real risk of losing use of the ISS altogether. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2337
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 09-13-2009 07:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
John, with respect, the charge as stated was that without the Russians, we would have had to abandon the space station in the wake of Columbia, which is correct. ...
Assuming that we would have built the station (presumably still named "Freedom") and everything else happened just the same in the subsequent years, including the Columbia accident. When one changes an event in history, it is safe to assume that other things would have changed as well, particularly since flight rates would probably have been different, etc. Who knows? Maybe the station would have been built and used for X number of years, and then a Columbia-type accident occurs and is the catalyst to abandon the station and move on to another vehicle, thus putting an Orion-type vehicle several years ahead of where it is now? It is all supposition at this point. There I go again, not keeping my mouth shut ... ------------------
John Capobianco
Camden DE |
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-13-2009 07:51 AM
I am NOT speaking for Walt....I have listened to many of his talks about ISS and his MAIN gripe is its orbit because of our Russian partners. He speaks of how if it was in more of an equatoral orbit that we could, in fact, use it as a base for sending spacecraft to the moon or Mars. However, because of it's 51 degree inclination, that makes it impossible. Based, again, on his previous writings, an overwhemling majority [until very recently] of the funding came from the US, while our other major partner benefitted more than they put into the project. I think that's his point - not modules that were necessarily put into Hubble. I think most of his point was the location and the funding of ISS and what it means to the future - and how it could have been a major contributor into the Constellation project. I won't even go near his views on funding. |
John Charles
Member Posts: 342
From: Houston, Texas, USA
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 09-13-2009 09:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The X-38 was only capable of returning the crew from the station, not launching new crews. So, while the crew aboard would have been capable of safely returning home, the station itself would have been abandoned.
Robert, you are right, of course. The "escape pod" capability would probably have been available, but not the capability for crew exchange. I mis-read "abandon the space station" as "leave the crew stranded with no means of returning to Earth." My bias influenced my perception--I've got to work on that! ------------------
John Charles
Houston, Texas |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 09-13-2009 09:25 PM
Just a thought from earlier posts:We did not go to the moon "for all mankind." That quote is taken out of context in this discussion. Of course most here know that Eagle's plaque read "We came in peace for all mankind" I think there is a significant distinction between the two. We conducted the Apollo program as a very public battle in the Cold War. We spent American money, utilized American talent (with help from several foreign contributors) and lost American lives in the pursuit of convincing the world that the free, democratic way of life is far superior to the communist way. We came in peace for all mankind seems to me to indicate that Apollo was not a military operation or an annexation of foreign (alien) soil as U.S. territory, but merely a demonstration of what 400,000 free people can do when given the opportunity to do so. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-15-2009 11:31 AM
NASA TV will air both of these hearings live: - House Committee on Science and Technology
September 15, 2009, 2:00 - 4:00 p.m. EDT
"Options and Issues for NASA's Human Space Flight Program: Report of the 'Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans' Committee"
Panel 1: Mr. Norman Augustine
Panel 2: Vice Admiral Joe Dyer USN (Ret.), Dr. Michael Griffin - Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space
September 16, 2009, 2:30 p.m. EDT
"Options from the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee"
Panel 1: Mr. Norman Augustine
|
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-15-2009 04:26 PM
Just finished watching most of the House Committee on Science and Technology hearing on the Augustine Commission summary report. Though a number of the committee members weren't happy with the report itself, there appeared to be almost universal support for raising NASA's budget. Maybe Mr. Augustine and the others were just preaching to the choir, since this is a Congressional committee devoted to the subject, but it looks to me like there's at least hope for the future of the space program. |
rafefour
New Member Posts: 2
From: Palm Springs, CA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-15-2009 05:40 PM
NASA and our commercial space companies must take a leadership position. There is a place for competition between them. Leaders lead and the United States must lead. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-15-2009 05:52 PM
Concur... was pleasantly surprised Augustine as well as the majority of the congressional committee members (with one or two exceptions) recognized that as a national security issue, the US should not have a core program co-dependent on international participation. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-15-2009 07:38 PM
I'm not sure that we all agree about the definition of a "leader" as opposed to a "competitor" when it comes to the United States' role within the community of spacefaring nations. It seems to me that at least some, if not most, of the congressional members were using the word "leader" in such a way that it would not preclude international partnerships.And there's a very good argument, I believe, as to how international cooperation in space is in the best interests of the U.S.'s national defense. If nothing else, having the scientists and technicians of other spacefaring nations engaged in international partnerships with the U.S. at least means that they have little opportunity to spend their time and talents building weapon systems that can be used against us. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-16-2009 12:07 AM
I like Cunningham's comments simply for the fact that they get to the point without all of the nonsense that we are used to hearing from politicians and commentators.They hearings were positive but nothing will happen until the President makes a decision. Honestly, I am not sure what the White House Science Advisor thinks about NASA. |
divemaster
Member Posts: 1376
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 09-26-2009 07:28 AM
To paraphrase Charlie Duke when giving out an ASF scholarship at NC State, "If we can come up with 'Cash for Clunkers', we can find an extra $3B to make the Constellation program work correctly." |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-26-2009 09:55 AM
For those who harbor the illusion that continuing to fly the Shuttle to "close the gap" remains a viable option, Wayne Hale's latest situation report posted to his blog is worth a read. |
Apollo Redux
Member Posts: 346
From: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Registered: Sep 2006
|
posted 09-26-2009 04:29 PM
As much as it may make sense to pool resources with other "spacefaring" nations,
how much sense does it make to commit to such a long-term endeavor with political entities that are not lockstep with yours?Why not combine American Military institutions with these countries? |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-26-2009 04:49 PM
Actually we have..its called NATO (Not Able to Organize) and look where its gotten us in Afghanistan! |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 09-27-2009 11:40 AM
I don't think the future of humans in space can in any way be equated with wars on Earth. We sure don't want to take our petty differences to another planet. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-27-2009 01:01 PM
My point about NATO is that even in an organization comprised of countries with mutual strategic interests tasked to achieve a common objective, it is extraordinarily difficult for its membership to agree and execute anything. Each country has its own (constantly evolving) priorities, cultures, internal political dynamics, world view, economics, law which dictate the nature of their participation and prioritization of effort. Its idealistic to espouse the merits of close cooperation and for simple relationships which address non-complex, short term contributory activities international partnerships can be effective; broader level multi-lateral initiatives are rarely successful over the long haul (one only need take a look at the dysfunctional UN to observe this). |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 09-28-2009 09:01 PM
NATO and the UN, despite one's opinion on their effectiveness, are not really on point, IMO. The objectives of a space partnership will be fairly well defined before the partners sign on, and the remaining partners will need to pick up the slack if any members drop out along the way or fail in their obligations. I think the ISS is a much better example of what we're talking about. And despite the fact that this partnership has been less than 100% efficient, the darn thing is up there and open for business. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 09-28-2009 10:58 PM
ISS is not a good example - international participation being additive, not critical to its assembly. But accepting your premise as it relates to Soyuz support, what happens if the Russians decide they dont wanna play after 2010 as US/Russian relations deteriorate. ISS orbit decays and emergent maintenance on the station required to keep it operational no longer occurs (we probably lose the station). Who do we call on to take up the slack?ISS is also relatively less complex an endeavor then assembling and operating a lunar or Mars base. I believe the NATO or UN analog is applicable because of the larger scope, degree of coordination, commitment of resources over a more protracted period. If a partner has responsibility for providing logistics support to a lunar/mars base the consequences are even more severe when it reneges or is unable to execute its responsibilities (getting personnel and material in/out of the gravity well is significantly more challenging then moving them between Earth/LEO - crews and facilities at these remote locations are much more susceptible to being placed "in-extremis" if a partner doesnt live up to its obligations). |
Topic Closed
advertisement