NationStates Jolt Archive

Didn't spot any other threads on this as I scanned through recent pages, so...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, SPUTNIK!

Thinking about that little lump of metal set me off thinking about space exploration in general, and my long-standing idealistic wish to see the whole field given more attention/funding/love by everyone.

Where does the rest of NSG stand on the whole space exploration thing?

Great idea, any and all new knowledge is good... we should do more of it?

We have enough problems here on the ground, so further space exploration is a waste of money?

We have to colonise space or else we're all doomed?

Some other option, or some unholy combination/perversion of the above views?

Sputnik launch (http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7020000/newsid_7026900/7026963.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&asb=1&news=1&ms3=52)
It was 50 years ago today
That we heard Sputnik say,
dit...dit...dit...dit...diiittttt...

sadly at the moment we don't have the technology or money to do anything exciting

maybe we could cancel African debt in the meantime

In Soviet Russia, Sputnik wishes you a happy birthday!

Hooray for Sputnik! Post-humous congratulations are also in order for comrade Sergey Pavlovich Korolyov, chief designer of the Soviet ICBM and Space programmes.

In regards to space exploration, with other nations recent successes in space exploration technology, namely China, India and Kazahkstan, I believe that a proper UN space agency should be developed to allow direct cooperation between NASA, ESA, CNSA, the RKA and all other national space agencies. This way every nation can provide funding to a collective effort to explore space, and benefit from such research.

In the future, I'd like to see extra-terrestrial orbitting space colonies and a manned extra-solar space mission.

Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear Sputnik
Happy birthday to you!

*eats cake*

And I totally agree with the idea of a UN space agency.

... We could have had a virtually self sufficient lunar colony for 35 years now. SF gets way too little love.

And I totally agree with the idea of a UN space agency.

Cool. :)

The current ISS program is just a sample of what can be achieved when national space agencies act multi-laterally. Imagine what could be achieved if we could stream-line such cooperation between agencies through a UN agency? I often hear that NASA is becoming hard-pressed in regards to funding in recent times. Such funding is critical if they are to produce a replacement vehicle to the aging Space shuttles. Imagine what they could do if they had funding streaming in from across the globe, and foreign experts to advise them.

In most newspaper articles concerning NASA's goal to send another mission to the moon, and to begin construction of a moonbase sometime in the 2020's, there's always a mention of Chinese and Russian space endevours that rival NASA. There's also a legal question of whether or not the US can even build a moonbase without violating International Space law. That and I'm pretty sure other nations will be sore that the US will have sole rights to any research and benefits from such a moonbase.

The obvious answer is create an International Moon mission under the auspices of the UN. International cooperation is always good for diplomatic reasons, a pooling of resources means we could create a moonbase faster, and everyone gets a piece of the Moon-pie.

"remember the 50s,
those fat complacent days,
when the future seemed a century away,

then up went sput nik
gave the world a but kick'
and beep beep tomarrow starts today!"

...

"sputnik wore out, and tumblend back to earth,
on reentry it burned up very soon.
hail and goodby
to that goose in the sky.
and in 12 more years a man walked on the moon."

(from the alblum minus 10 and counting, available from promethius, (which if i'm not mistaken was formerly firebird which was formerly off-centaur, well i know was formerly is inaccurate, evolved out of in a sense though perhapse))

i forget who the actual personelle who wrote and sang it, but they have a web site. promethius music. probably a dot com.

anyway yah, i was in grade school when sputnik went up.
and just out of high school when the egle landed on the moon.

=^^=
.../\...

Cool. :)

The current ISS program is just a sample of what can be achieved when national space agencies act multi-laterally. Imagine what could be achieved if we could stream-line such cooperation between agencies through a UN agency? I often hear that NASA is becoming hard-pressed in regards to funding in recent times. Such funding is critical if they are to produce a replacement vehicle to the aging Space shuttles. Imagine what they could do if they had funding streaming in from across the globe, and foreign experts to advise them.

What's that late on schedule and over-budget?

Where does the rest of NSG stand on the whole space exploration thing?

I think space exploration is a good barometre to judge the progress of the human race as a whole. On the thread about a hypothetical secession of states in the US earlier I actually said I'd be against it if it meant it would destroy NASA.

What's that late on schedule and over-budget?

I haven't been keeping up much with the ISS programmes progress lately, but if that's true, it's even more reason to ensure closer cooperation between space agencies. Then countries would get more foreign assistance provided to thier own component's of the program, there'd be greater communication between agencies, and so deadlines would be more likely to be met, and efficiency increased, resulting in less monetary waste.

What's that late on schedule and over-budget?And this is different from all other space-related programs... How?

And this is different from all other space-related programs... How?
Only in the magnitude. Which begs the question "Why put more emphasis on international efforts?"

I haven't been keeping up much with the ISS programmes progress lately, but if that's true, it's even more reason to ensure closer cooperation between space agencies. Then countries would get more foreign assistance provided to thier own component's of the program, there'd be greater communication between agencies, and so deadlines would be more likely to be met, and efficiency increased, resulting in less monetary waste.
The only way to guarantee a schedule is to have one 'someone' in charge. The only way to guarantee a budget is to make 'someone' responsible.

Leaving any program to a committee is to accept failure before the project even starts.

Don't misunderstand -- technology transfer is wonderful, if you gain something. That doesn't have anything to do with running a well-managed program.

What's that late on schedule and over-budget?

What government project isn't?

Imagine what could be achieved if we could stream-line such cooperation between agencies through a UN agency? I often hear that NASA is becoming hard-pressed in regards to funding in recent times. Such funding is critical if they are to produce a replacement vehicle to the aging Space shuttles. Imagine what they could do if they had funding streaming in from across the globe, and foreign experts to advise them.
The glaring problem with greater international cooperation/collaboration on space-related projects is that such projects typically involve creating new technologies or, at the least, expanding extant technologies. Such advances are frequently adaptable for military purposes, and so nations tend to be a bit leery of sharing what they know.

Depressing, I know.

The only way to guarantee a schedule is to have one 'someone' in charge. The only way to guarantee a budget is to make 'someone' responsible.

Leaving any program to a committee is to accept failure before the project even starts.

Don't misunderstand -- technology transfer is wonderful, if you gain something. That doesn't have anything to do with running a well-managed program.

Now we see your true colours.

"Democracy is for the weak... what we need is dictatorship".

Now we see your true colours.

"Democracy is for the weak... what we need is dictatorship".

Unfortunately, no. It's true that any project of any significant scale requires a head director. You need someone who can provide leadership for the overall project and a head on the block if it fails.

Committees are good for coming up with general ideas and hearings and such. But when it comes to implementation, you need someone who has the say so in doing things. Chief architect, etc, etc. Committees are good for fiddling and diddling with general ideas, but they won't stop that fiddling when it comes to implementation.

Unfortunately, no. It's true that any project of any significant scale requires a head director. You need someone who can provide leadership for the overall project and a head on the block if it fails.

Committees are good for coming up with general ideas and hearings and such. But when it comes to implementation, you need someone who has the say so in doing things. Chief architect, etc, etc. Committees are good for fiddling and diddling with general ideas, but they won't stop that fiddling when it comes to implementation.

And that contadicts what I said, how?

Space exploration seems to be at a standstill these days, at least when governments do it. Who else has booked their seat on the maiden voyage(s) of Virgin Galactic?

I don't see much of a point in space travel. I could see the point in it for national pride purposes, but those days are over. All the records for stuff like first animal in space, man in space, man on the moon, ect. have been taken. So I couldn't really see the point in Britain paying through the nose to send someone on a manned ESA mission (As has been suggested) when it's been done long before. If it was a purely British effort that would be something but it would be prohibitively expensive for a country of our size. So I think we should just leave it, we have more important things to spend the money on.

As for the idea of colonising other planets, pie in the sky. I'm sure I'll be long dead by then (Or by the time it becomes necessary), as will most likely be any children, grandchildren, ect that I may have.

Most democracies have elected "committee members" who sit in Parliament, and a Head Of State (Sometimes elected, but sometimes not) who excercises control over the bureaucracy and thereby does the policy implementation stuff (As much as any such thing is actually done by a country's leader).


But anyway, back to space, I am looking forward to the new space race brewing between China and India/everyone else. With luck we will avoid weaponising space at the very least until we have permanent, self-sufficient colonies somewhere. I do agree that we have to put resources into solving problems on Earth, but at the same time I think doing research and exploration in space can be applied to Earthly things. I would not mind some more funding put into undersea research and colonisation, too. That could eventually be helpful for when we want to land on Venus or something like that.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13105009']
As for the idea of colonising other planets, pie in the sky. I'm sure I'll be long dead by then (Or by the time it becomes necessary), as will most likely be any children, grandchildren, ect that I may have.

You've got to start somewhere...successful offworld settlement could earn the nation that is first to achieve it a lot of money, especially if they pick a location with abundant raw materials for export.

The most important reason for advancing space technology is money.

You've got to start somewhere...successful offworld settlement could earn the nation that is first to achieve it a lot of money, especially if they pick a location with abundant raw materials for export.

The most important reason for advancing space technology is money.

I'd say otherwise. I'd say the most important reason is space. We're just fundamentally a non-compatible species. We're gregarious, oh yes - but we don't get along well in large groups. And the best solution to that problem, is vast distances.

If we hope to find a situation where we don't mutually destroy, colonisation of the great beyond is probably our best bet (short of neural-stapling, or some such concept).

Now we see your true colours.

"Democracy is for the weak... what we need is dictatorship".
Clearly, you haven't managed many projects bigger than a term paper. When you do, you'll find that there is no room for democracy if you want to stay on schedule and on budget.

Clearly, you haven't managed many projects bigger than a term paper. When you do, you'll find that there is no room for democracy if you want to stay on schedule and on budget.

Whatever floats your boat. I guess it depends on what you mean by 'projects bigger than a term paper', and what you mean by 'democracy'. The Wapentak version of democracy is actually surprisingly efficient at dealing with 'projects' of up to a few hundred people...

One assumes you realise that 'an entire nation' is 'bigger than a term paper'?

One would assume that you realise there is a logical premise about your true leanings, that can be arrived at, based on your responses?

And that contadicts what I said, how?

It's a far cry from a dictatorship really. The basic framework may look the same, but how the power is actually distributed and limited makes all the difference in the world.

A chief engineer of a construction project can't just waltz up to one of the workers and go "Karl, I'm taking your wife for a spin tonight. And I'm your boss. So ha!"

Dictators ala Kim in North Korea however, could get away with it.

It's all in how it's put together.

It's a far cry from a dictatorship really. The basic framework may look the same, but how the power is actually distributed and limited makes all the difference in the world.

A chief engineer of a construction project can't just waltz up to one of the workers and go "Karl, I'm taking your wife for a spin tonight. And I'm your boss. So ha!"

Dictators ala Kim in North Korea however, could get away with it.

It's all in how it's put together.

So - anything that isn't the one particular 'dictatorship' you mean... isn't a dictatorship?

That's rather a narrow definition....

So - anything that isn't the one particular 'dictatorship' you mean... isn't a dictatorship?

That's rather a narrow definition....

I listed out a comparative example, but if you're not happy with that, well, lets ask you then. What's a dictatorship to you?

It may be an incorrect assumption on my part, but based on your statements, any form of formalized leadership would be a dictatorship.

I listed out a comparative example, but if you're not happy with that, well, lets ask you then. What's a dictatorship to you?

It may be an incorrect assumption on my part, but based on your statements, any form of formalized leadership would be a dictatorship.

I'd say that 'dictatorship' is the requirement for a dictatorship.

You say you listed out 'a comparative example'... a contrast, against which the structure (as discussed with Myrmidonisia) wouldn't be a dictatorship. Okay.. you pick an extreme - that doesn't mean anything only approaching the extreme is NOT a dictatorship, right?

Stalin's dictatorship was much more dictator-y than Hitlers... but Hitler was still a dictator, yes?

I'd say that 'dictatorship' is the requirement for a dictatorship.

Well, wasn't that a post full of traits to determine what a dictatorship is? Come now. Don't hedge your post.

Well, wasn't that a post full of traits to determine what a dictatorship is? Come now. Don't hedge your post.

Why do we need a post full of traits?

'A dictatorship' is a model governed by the principle of dictator-ship. The only trait that is required is that dictatorial imperative, surely?

Why do we need a post full of traits?

'A dictatorship' is a model governed by the principle of dictator-ship. The only trait that is required is that dictatorial imperative, surely?

If that is your sole attribute to determine what a dictatorship is, which given by common usage indicates an absolute ruler over a state without any form of limiting legislature, then implying that an international collaboration on a space project with a leading state is a dictatorship is most misleading is it not?

Why do we need a post full of traits?

'A dictatorship' is a model governed by the principle of dictator-ship. The only trait that is required is that dictatorial imperative, surely?
By that token, and by what else you've argued against on this thread, one could argue that every form of governance is a dictatorship. Even democracies.
Think about it. Most governments aren't elected by outright majorities - so that's around 60% of the populace already who aren't represented.
We then have only a couple of hundred ppl in parliament doing the actual governing - a few score of (mostly) men to decide upon all our fates.
Of those few score, some wield more power than others and so are disproportionately influential in the running of the country.
Policy is created by a mere handful of people - some not even elected. When it comes right down to it, we might have just 1 person deciding on a key aspect of a policy and then who persuades the rest of the policy committee as to his viewpoint .Said committee then persuading the party and from their the public as to the validity of the policy.

And thus the country's policy and direction is decided upon by one person - a true definition of dictatorship.

Definitely a credible proposition. But just as asinine as what you've been arguing against.

I saw this Sunday Times piece (http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/specials/space/article2584355.ece) by Jeremy Clarkson earlier today in which -- in his own individual style -- he seems to advocate rebooting the space race again by perhaps the least attractive option, starting a new Cold War.

I'm really not much of a fan of Clarkson, but I've always admired the way that he always says whatever the hell he feels, and doesn't temper his tone to avoid causing offence when he feels something needs to be said. This piece is in that style :)

Sputnik FTW

By that token, and by what else you've argued against on this thread, one could argue that every form of governance is a dictatorship. Even democracies.
Think about it. Most governments aren't elected by outright majorities - so that's around 60% of the populace already who aren't represented.
We then have only a couple of hundred ppl in parliament doing the actual governing - a few score of (mostly) men to decide upon all our fates.
Of those few score, some wield more power than others and so are disproportionately influential in the running of the country.
Policy is created by a mere handful of people - some not even elected. When it comes right down to it, we might have just 1 person deciding on a key aspect of a policy and then who persuades the rest of the policy committee as to his viewpoint .Said committee then persuading the party and from their the public as to the validity of the policy.

Very true. All forms of government are dictatorial. The Athenian Democracy was the dictatorship of the people. Modern democracies are dictatorships of the so-called representatives of the people,more similar to an oligarchy. There is no true democracy nor a true dictatorship, only different shades of gray (and that applies to all earthly).