I’ve followed the discussion here over the past few days concerning the
planned Space Station Freedom (or its current version, Ralph) and I have been
inspired to consider again something that has bothered me off and on for
several years; something that several of the posters have alluded to,i.e. ,
the seeming inability of the USA to formulate and maintain any form of long
range policy in the last quarter of the 20th century. Someone mentioned that
long range planning is often difficult for a democracy and, historically
speaking, that might be true. However, to me at least, the problem seems
worse in the US; in fact, shortsightedness seems to be epidemic in our
culture. It is almost as if it were an inherent part of our national
character. The problem is apparent not only in government planning, but in
everything from companies that fail to maintain their competitive edge because
of a quest for the quick buck at the expense of long-range planning and
investment to the individual who fails to plan for his future because he is
too worried about today or too involved in enjoying the present.
I actually think there is more going on here than the political fluctuations
that will always be present in a democratic government. First, I think the
rapid pace and continuous change of modern society has tended to undermine the
ability of people to think in terms of years and decades rather than hours and
days. Society and technology change so rapidly that the sense of continuity
necessary for the average person to think long-term is undermined. How can
the average person plan for events 20 years in the future when there is no way
to tell what things will be like in even 5 years. Secondly, I do tend to
believe that there is something in the psychological nature of the average
American that makes long-range plannign difficult to do or understand.
Perhaps this is a quality shaped by the forces of history or perhaps something
inherited from our explorer/pioneer ancestors. Whateever the reason, the
American citizen is, by nature, an impatient animal. If the average American
citizen doesn’t see a return on his investment within a scale of time that is
realistic to him, he then for all intents and purposes believes there is no
return at all. Lastly, the very openness of our society may mitigate against
successful long-range planning, at least in the public domain. The widespread
dissemination of highly technical information in a format that the average
laymen can not understand may serve to confuse and alienate the electorate,
and thereby harm the public image of long-term projects (or any highly
technical project). Clearly, the answer to this aspect of the problem is not
to close our society but rather to educate the electorate so that they might
better understand these issues and, at the same time, to express the goals of
complicated projects in terms that most of the people can understand. The
idea that the average person can never understand some projects is elitist
contempt. Most of us will never understand the intricacies of particle
physics, but the goals and aims of particle physics research can be stated in
a non-technical manner, without esoteric mathematics, that anyone can at least
grasp. Lastly, I believe these problems may be becoming worse, almost as if
modern society is aggravating a tendency already present in the American
nature. We certainly haven’t had any political leaders in recent years
who have been able or willing to inspire the American people to dedicate
themselves to any long-range goals. This inability to take the long view has
implications for all aspects of American society, from crime and social policy
to space exploration.
Now, assuming that most of the above is true to some extent, what implications
does that have for American space policy (or, for that matter, for scientific
research in general)? I am an ardent supporter of space research and
exploration. I believe that manned exploration of space is an absolute
necessity if we are to avoid the eventual stagnation of the human spirit and
the premature extinction of the human race. I also think that space
exploration should be an international effort and a force for unity in the
world. However, I tend to see these matters in terms of decades or even
centuries. I don’t think it is realistic to expect most people to look
further ahead than a couple of generations and many people won’t look beyond
the welfare of their own children. What is the best way to promote space
exploration to a populace that doesn’t think ahead for more than a couple of
years? Can other nations rely on the US to do its part in any long-term
project, given our government’s demonstrated inability to maintain a vigorous
and consistent policy for ten years, let alone twenty or thirty years?
Ray Porter
lrp.ad…@mhs.unc.edu
lrp.ad…@mhs.unc.edu (Ray Porter) writes:
/I’ve followed the discussion here over the past few days concerning the
/planned Space Station Freedom (or its current version, Ralph) and I have been
/inspired to consider again something that has bothered me off and on for
/several years; something that several of the posters have alluded to,i.e. ,
/the seeming inability of the USA to formulate and maintain any form of long
/range policy in the last quarter of the 20th century. Someone mentioned that
/long range planning is often difficult for a democracy and, historically
/speaking, that might be true. However, to me at least, the problem seems
/worse in the US; in fact, shortsightedness seems to be epidemic in our
/culture. It is almost as if it were an inherent part of our national
/character. The problem is apparent not only in government planning, but in
/everything from companies that fail to maintain their competitive edge because
/of a quest for the quick buck at the expense of long-range planning and
/investment to the individual who fails to plan for his future because he is
/too worried about today or too involved in enjoying the present.
>lots of good stuff deleted<
/Now, assuming that most of the above is true to some extent, what implications
/does that have for American space policy (or, for that matter, for scientific
/research in general)? I am an ardent supporter of space research and
/exploration. I believe that manned exploration of space is an absolute
/necessity if we are to avoid the eventual stagnation of the human spirit and
/the premature extinction of the human race. I also think that space
/exploration should be an international effort and a force for unity in the
/world. However, I tend to see these matters in terms of decades or even
/centuries. I don’t think it is realistic to expect most people to look
/further ahead than a couple of generations and many people won’t look beyond
/the welfare of their own children. What is the best way to promote space
/exploration to a populace that doesn’t think ahead for more than a couple of
/years? Can other nations rely on the US to do its part in any long-term
/project, given our government’s demonstrated inability to maintain a vigorous
/and consistent policy for ten years, let alone twenty or thirty years?
I too have followed the .space newsgroups for some time I agree with pretty much
all that Ray has said and I think it is a worthy thread to be expanded upon by others.
John Hinkey
hin…@aa.washington.edu
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
lrp.ad…@mhs.unc.edu (Ray Porter) writes:
>I’ve followed the discussion here over the past few days concerning the
>planned Space Station Freedom (or its current version, Ralph) and I have been
>inspired to consider again something that has bothered me off and on for
>several years; something that several of the posters have alluded to,i.e. ,
>the seeming inability of the USA to formulate and maintain any form of long
>range policy in the last quarter of the 20th century. Someone mentioned that
>long range planning is often difficult for a democracy and, historically
>speaking, that might be true. However, to me at least, the problem seems
>worse in the US; in fact, shortsightedness seems to be epidemic in our
>culture. It is almost as if it were an inherent part of our national
>character. The problem is apparent not only in government planning, but in
>everything from companies that fail to maintain their competitive edge because
>of a quest for the quick buck at the expense of long-range planning and
>investment to the individual who fails to plan for his future because he is
>too worried about today or too involved in enjoying the present.
>contempt. Most of us will never understand the intricacies of particle
>physics, but the goals and aims of particle physics research can be stated in
>a non-technical manner, without esoteric mathematics, that anyone can at least
>grasp. Lastly, I believe these problems may be becoming worse, almost as if
>modern society is aggravating a tendency already present in the American
>nature. We certainly haven’t had any political leaders in recent years
>who have been able or willing to inspire the American people to dedicate
>themselves to any long-range goals. This inability to take the long view has
>implications for all aspects of American society, from crime and social policy
>to space exploration.
>Now, assuming that most of the above is true to some extent, what implications
>does that have for American space policy (or, for that matter, for scientific
>research in general)? I am an ardent supporter of space research and
>exploration. I believe that manned exploration of space is an absolute
>necessity if we are to avoid the eventual stagnation of the human spirit and
>the premature extinction of the human race. I also think that space
>exploration should be an international effort and a force for unity in the
>world. However, I tend to see these matters in terms of decades or even
>centuries. I don’t think it is realistic to expect most people to look
>further ahead than a couple of generations and many people won’t look beyond
>the welfare of their own children. What is the best way to promote space
>exploration to a populace that doesn’t think ahead for more than a couple of
>years? Can other nations rely on the US to do its part in any long-term
>project, given our government’s demonstrated inability to maintain a vigorous
>and consistent policy for ten years, let alone twenty or thirty years?
>Ray Porter
>lrp.ad…@mhs.unc.edu
Not to sound too pessimistic, but we as a species, a country, a culture, etc.
are screwed.
-Chris
p…@aries.scs.uiuc.edu
In article <lrp.admin.12.00097…@mhs.unc.edu> lrp.ad…@mhs.unc.edu (Ray Porter) writes:
Someone mentioned that
>long range planning is often difficult for a democracy and, historically
>speaking, that might be true. However, to me at least, the problem seems
>worse in the US; in fact, shortsightedness seems to be epidemic in our
>culture.
I would go so far as to say that it is impossible. Nor is this necessarily
undesirable; it is important for the various groups to go off in their
directions, and not to have any more central planning than needed for
emergencies.
Trying to get us to have a national policy on space or energy or the
environment just means that we get locked into at most the best of a
bad deal.
………………………….
>Now, assuming that most of the above is true to some extent, what implications
>does that have for American space policy (or, for that matter, for scientific
>research in general)? I am an ardent supporter of space research and
>exploration. I believe that manned exploration of space is an absolute
>necessity if we are to avoid the eventual stagnation of the human spirit and
>the premature extinction of the human race. I also think that space
>exploration should be an international effort and a force for unity in the
>world.
The efforts should not be limited by national boundaries, but the problem
which we must face is that governments responsive to an electorate cannot
do things of this nature. Trying to get more governments into the same
act is worse. And in exploration, diversity is far better than unity.
—
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru…@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
LONG TERM PLANNING
I agree that our inability to follow a long term program
is keeping us out of space.
GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
I now think this will never change for the government projects.
(I wish I had not invested 14 years of my hopes and
dreams in the big government projects.) NASA must
respond to direction from the White House and Congress
(I would not want it otherwise). Since this is tax money
everyone fights over it – and the priorities shift.
GOVERNMENT "SOLUTIONS"
We don’t need the big government solution (like Shuttle,
Space Station, Lunar Base, Mars Base..). We need an
environment (technology, policy, legal) where companies can
form and develop systems to produce products and services
from space. We need to split the formation of the entire
interplanetary economic system into small pieces that
are manageable by private companies.
CAN SPACE GROW LIKE THE INTERNET?
Consider your internet connection. However it was that you
got access to the net, it was not through some central planning
office. (Ok, maybe it was a small central planning office.) The
National Computing and Networking Administration did not evaluate
the scientific and technical merits of your proposal for access.
Your PC connection was not scheduled on the three year operational
plan. Internet started from government funded technology. It has
government support. But each user and organization is making their
own efforts to be involved for their own particular needs.
Internet has grown far beyond what was imagined by central
planners. (In contrast, I used to work with a government team
to provide information services – "a spreadsheet?, yes we can
program our mainframe to give users something of a spreadsheet..
it will take 9 months.. PCs? Not allowed. This organization was
formed to program mainframes..")
SMALL COMPANIES
I used to ignore the small private space efforts. (Who cared if
you can make a tiny satellite? We want to develop the Moon!)
Now I see these small companies as building the framework for
a true space-based economy. They might only provide LEO
services now, but the same model of company can be expanded
in the future.
CAN WE REACH SPACE IN MANY SMALL STEPS?
Can this be done? The same people could be involved –
in the big planned solution or in the private enterprise system.
But can you design the economic incentives to make this work?
- Eric
* E.L.Dahlst…@larc.nasa.gov * +1 804-766-9635 * ISU’91 USA *
* Lockheed Eng & Sci Co, 144 Research Drive, Hampton, VA 23666 *
In article <2f5esn$…@reznor.larc.nasa.gov> E.L.DAHLST…@larc.nasa.gov (Eric Dahlstrom) writes:
>LONG TERM PLANNING
>I agree that our inability to follow a long term program
>is keeping us out of space.
I disagree, and even Mr. Dahlstrom’s writing disagrees. There is a form
of long term commitment needed which is not overly costly; a commitment
to progress and advancement, but not a controlled program. Also, I
disagree that the job can be done as easily as Mr. Dahlstrom claims.
>GOVERNMENT PROJECTS
>I now think this will never change for the government projects.
>(I wish I had not invested 14 years of my hopes and
>dreams in the big government projects.) NASA must
>respond to direction from the White House and Congress
>(I would not want it otherwise). Since this is tax money
>everyone fights over it – and the priorities shift.
The real problem here is that the government has effectively
blocked other approaches. The government is now planning to
cripple basic research in the US. Fifty years ago it would have
been difficult for them to damage it much. Forty years ago it
would have only hurt a little. Thirty years ago it would have
been a fairly big problem. But today, the situation is that
the great bulk of the research money, and much of the development
money, now being spent in the US (and the rest of the world may
be in even worse shape) comed from national government funds.
Also, the government has restricted many of the private funding
avenues. The government has both provided tax money and made it
more difficult to use non-tax money.
A stroke of the pen could wipe out most of the scientific research
effort in the US. Individual universities now receive well over
$100 million annualy in government research funds. Possibly
CalTech could survive intact if these funds were withdrawn
without calamity, but few others could.
>GOVERNMENT "SOLUTIONS"
>We don’t need the big government solution (like Shuttle,
>Space Station, Lunar Base, Mars Base..). We need an
>environment (technology, policy, legal) where companies can
>form and develop systems to produce products and services
>from space. We need to split the formation of the entire
>interplanetary economic system into small pieces that
>are manageable by private companies.
Unfortunately, I disagree. Too often, there is a minimum size.
There have been suggestions for cheaper ways to produce space
stations, but we will find out essentially nothing about how
to live in space without a fair-sized one. There is a minimum
size for a given undertaking. Now there are cheap computers,
but there were no early cheap computers. Shortly after one
of the first IBM 709′s was made available to the West Coast
univiersities, I visited it; the entire building had to be
air-conditioned. Today’s PC outperforms it. But it was
necessary for the development of computers to start big.
Space is even worse. The transition from a gravity well as
large as the Earth’s to outer space requires an expenditure
of energy per unit mass at a considerable rate; this is the
big problem with getting out there. But there is private
money available to do large scale projects if the governement
would merely get out of the way.
…………….
>SMALL COMPANIES
>I used to ignore the small private space efforts. (Who cared if
>you can make a tiny satellite? We want to develop the Moon!)
>Now I see these small companies as building the framework for
>a true space-based economy. They might only provide LEO
>services now, but the same model of company can be expanded
>in the future.
>CAN WE REACH SPACE IN MANY SMALL STEPS?
>Can this be done? The same people could be involved –
>in the big planned solution or in the private enterprise system.
>But can you design the economic incentives to make this work?
I do not believe that it can be done. But the economic system to
do the big job can be set up, and easily. Remember tha quite some
time ago O’Neill envisioned setting up L5 stations large enough to
be viable communities. It probably could have been done then; it
can be done now. But it is doubtful if any government can do it
except as a matter of military strength or political prestige.
Why should pooling resources require the approval of the majority
of the people in a nation? One-fifth of the population of the US
would be a majority in all but a few industrialized nations.
—
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru…@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
In article <CIDyKx….@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hru…@snap.stat.purdue.edu
(Herman Rubin) writes:
Also, the government has restricted many of the private funding avenues.
The government has both provided tax money and made it more difficult to
use non-tax money.
Please explain how the US Federal government can/is doing that. How is the
Hughes Foundation or the Wellcome Trust inhibited from spending its money on
research? You’ve been saying this often; now I want to know why.
Jan
In article <JAN.93Dec21183…@gaspra.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> j…@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de (Jan Vorbrueggen) writes:
>In article <CIDyKx….@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hru…@snap.stat.purdue.edu
>(Herman Rubin) writes:
> Also, the government has restricted many of the private funding avenues.
> The government has both provided tax money and made it more difficult to
> use non-tax money.
>Please explain how the US Federal government can/is doing that. How is the
>Hughes Foundation or the Wellcome Trust inhibited from spending its money on
>research? You’ve been saying this often; now I want to know why.
There have been major restrictions introduced on the development and
growth of private foundations. Foundations are generally required to
quickly disburse their income, which means restrictions on the use of
compound interest to build up for major undertakings. An individual
or profit-making firm can set up a foundation to disburse its interest
and even its principal for research, but even here they have to adhere
to the government line in what can be done.
Far too many restrictions have been placed on what can be done by
massive government regulations. I doubt if the government would
approve a private space station or Lunar colony unless it gave
control to the government. We also have some evidence that the
government will attempt to block such activities by non-governmental
organizations in other countries.
—
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hru…@snap.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)
{purdue,pur-ee}!snap.stat!hrubin(UUCP)