[FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]

[E.P. Grondine]

Jens  -

"entangled", as Tom states, is not the correct word.  The ISS was initially 
proposed by President Reagan to counter invitations from the Soviet Union to 
many nations to participate in their space station program. Reagan took this 
action to maintain the United States leadership role in space.

China intends to be able to match these abilities by 2016.  China will then 
be able to offer to other nations invitations for manned spaceflight similar 
to those made by the United States in the early 1980's.

About 2016, China will undertake the decision whether to match the US manned 
Moon flight capabilities of 1969.

As I mentioned earlier Chinese space leadership has stated two reasons for 
going to the Moon, He3 mining and the completion of astronomical surveys.  
While He3 may not be feasable, the Comet and Asteroid Protecction System 
would bring them into parity with the other great nations by 2022 or so. As 
a matter of fact, if China decides to do CAPS, my opinion is that it will 
probably bring them to the leadership role in space internationally.

The technologies being developed by the ISS in low Earth orbit are exactly 
the same as those which will later be used in manned flight to the Moon and 
Mars. Included among those technologies are the methods for international 
cooperation and operations.

2016 is long way off, and the situation in the world will likely be very 
different by then.  So will our understanding of the impact hazard.

EP
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas

>From: "Matula, Thomas L." <MATULAT at uhv.edu>
>To: <dstdba at post4.tele.dk>, <FPSPACE at friends-partners.org>
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]
>Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:26:33 -0500
>
>Jen,
>
>The very reason NASA has to be returned to its core as an agency focused on 
>engineering and the development of aerospace technology is because of the 
>threat of China.
>
>Let's face it, the biggest barrier to NASA replacing the Shuttle is the 
>international agreements it is entangled in with the ISS. If it wasn't for 
>those agreements the Shuttle would have never flown again after Columibia 
>and the $6 billion a year spent on the Shuttle would now be funding the 
>VSE. Instead VSE funding is being cut as finishing the ISS is driving its 
>budget.
>
>If NASA was a private entity it would have cut its losses on ISS long 
>again, but foreign policy considerations it is required to keep building 
>the ISS.
>
>Tom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fpspace-bounces at friends-partners.org on behalf of Jens Kieffer-Olsen
>Sent: Sun 4/1/2007 1:08 PM
>To: FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>Subject: Re: [FPSPACE] What should NASA be?[Scanned by MAIL]
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>  From: Matula, Thomas L. [mailto:MATULAT at uhv.edu]
>  Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 9:59 PM
>
>   [snip]
>
> > NASA right now is torn in three directions. First you have
> > the strong science influence wanting to make space and NASA a
> > preserve for science only.
> >
> > Second you have folks want to make it an welfare agency for
>   [snip]
>
> > Then you have NASA as a foreign policy tool, building ISS to
> > keep its agreements with its partners and attempting to find
> > a justification for a project that really served no purpose
>   [snip]
>
> > I think a better solution is returning NASA to its
> > traditional role. SO what I think should happen with NASA is:
> >
> > First, space science should be spun-off as a separate
> > organization, much as NSF was created after WWII.  With it
>   [snip]
>
> > Next, after core completion the U.S. portion of the ISS
> > should be turned into a national laboratory and run just as
>   [snip]
>
> > Finally NASA would be free to return to original mission of
> > technology development and human exploration of space, just
> > as it was during NASA's most successful years under Apollo.
>
>  For me to see you fail to appreciate the long-term strategic
>  need that is NASA's justification as a government agency for
>  being in the business of manned space flight.
>
>  History repeats itself in cycles. People in the USA are for
>  understandable reasons hostile towards the principles that
>  guided the colonial masters of Old Europe. Yet the conquest
>  of the solar system is likely to mirror aspects of the
>  colonization of other continents by the European powers.
>
>  In subtle ways the world was divided between these powers
>  large and small. War between them was not the normal state,
>  rather they shared a common pride in being flag-bearers for
>  Christianity, royalty, and civilization.
>
>  The Moon and Mars ( espcially if made habitable ) could
>  eventually be carved up among countries in a process
>  mirroring both the actual political divisions on Earth
>  and the process long ago, when European monarchs took
>  possession of Africa, America, Asia, and Australia.
>
>  Therefore NASA will very much remain a foreign policy tool,
>  not for projects that 'serve no purpose' as you put it so
>  uninspiringly, but for the protection of vital US American
>  interests in outer space.
>
>  Once the Chinese have built tent camps all over the He3-rich
>  craters near the lunar poles, it's too late for the USA to
>  trust the Marines to kick ass.
>
>--
>Jens Kieffer-Olsen
>Slagelse, Denmark
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace
>
>_______________________________________________
>FPSPACE mailing list
>FPSPACE at friends-partners.org
>http://www.friends-partners.org/mailman/listinfo/fpspace

_________________________________________________________________
Live Search Maps – find all the local information you need, right when you 
need it. http://maps.live.com/?icid=hmtag2&FORM=MGAC01