First, one must take exception to his astonishing claim that the focus of our space program should be the mining of natural resources from deep space. The notion that this can be productively done and then returned to Earth is ludicrous. Anybody with a rudimentary understanding of the energy and resources necessary to attempt such a thing knows that there is no material we could bring back - not even gold - that would justify the trip, ever. For example, let's assume some Chinese space shuttle had the same return payload as our STS - 15 tons - and that 15 tons of pure gold was just floating in, say, the asteroid belt waiting to be picked up. With a spot price of $1,370.00, that gold would be worth $650 million, or roughly the interest the Chinese earn on their US bond portfolio in one week.
The fact that mining of any kind requires industrial-scale equipment makes the proposition even more mind-boggling. The fact that the success of any mining operation is predicated on actually finding recoverable quantities of a mineral in the vast expanse of our solar system makes it even more so.
Besides the simple economics that don't work and never will, Nelson's second claim that mining the solar system is necessary in order to save the Earth defies common sense. Our planet has only one resource at risk of being in short supply - energy; and more of that is not retrievable from deep space via space ships. So why exactly is Nelson advocating for it in the first place?
The fact that mining of any kind requires industrial-scale equipment makes the proposition even more mind-boggling. The fact that the success of any mining operation is predicated on actually finding recoverable quantities of a mineral in the vast expanse of our solar system makes it even more so.
Besides the simple economics that don't work and never will, Nelson's second claim that mining the solar system is necessary in order to save the Earth defies common sense. Our planet has only one resource at risk of being in short supply - energy; and more of that is not retrievable from deep space via space ships. So why exactly is Nelson advocating for it in the first place?
Next is his contention that NASA's STS (Shuttle) program should have been retained. How can any right-thinking person fail to understand that it was the Shuttle program that wrecked NASA? The 165,000 pound Shuttle was 90% dead weight compared to the alternatives, including the admittedly retro Orion capsule that will replace it. From a cost or safety standpoint, launching the Shuttle into space even one time made as much sense as launching my two story Colonial, yet NASA still did it 135 times, stuck their heads in the sand for 30 years and expected us to do the same. Ironically, Nelson makes this point when he refers to NASA's "culture of optimism", but fails to appreciate that it applied in spades to the Shuttle.
Nelson's assertion that China's nascent space program will have a functional shuttle by 2020 is implausible in the extreme. For one thing, such a program doesn't even exist in the public record, if it exists all. Second, Chinese success in space has proceeded at a snail's pace compared to what America achieved in the 60s and 70s, when the Shuttle program took a dozen years from conception to implementation, and this at a time when America's space industry and expertise was inconceivably larger than China's present day program. And not to put too fine a point on it, but despite their manufacturing prowess, China has not demonstrated the ability to design their way out of a paper bag. Their entire program in this regard is accomplished through acquisition, theft and appropriation, and last I heard, NASA wasn't handing over the blueprints to the STS.
Finally, there is no version of a shuttle capable of hauling oar from the asteroids that could contend with our planet's gravity well, either on departure or return. I could go on like this for days: Nelson claims - falsely and even cruelly - that the loss of life in the two Shuttle disasters might have been avoided had an escape pod been built into the Shuttle. Nelson scorns NASA's claim that an old-style capsule is ten times safer than shuttle technology, but this is easily provable based on the totality of manned space missions since 1959. He speaks glowingly of the Air Force's efforts to privatize space, but gives NASA no credit for doing the same. These are all things you'd expect a former NASA engineer to know, and yet, he doesn't.
Finally, there is no version of a shuttle capable of hauling oar from the asteroids that could contend with our planet's gravity well, either on departure or return. I could go on like this for days: Nelson claims - falsely and even cruelly - that the loss of life in the two Shuttle disasters might have been avoided had an escape pod been built into the Shuttle. Nelson scorns NASA's claim that an old-style capsule is ten times safer than shuttle technology, but this is easily provable based on the totality of manned space missions since 1959. He speaks glowingly of the Air Force's efforts to privatize space, but gives NASA no credit for doing the same. These are all things you'd expect a former NASA engineer to know, and yet, he doesn't.
It is also worth noting that most of the technology necessary to make a deep space trip has not only been developed by NASA, but has been a big part of NASA's unparalleled success with unmanned missions throughout the solar system. While Nelson is happy to wax poetic about a China with virtually no track record at all, he's not only content to dwell on NASA's failures, but apparently doesn't feel that their successes warrant even a mention.
That's just not constructive. Like Mr. Nelson, I believe we ought to travel to deep space, most likely the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter; but once we get there, it would be much more practical to colonize and develop it, rather than attempt to haul pieces of it back to Earth. In the meantime, perhaps he can reserve his ire for the politicians primarily responsible for much of NASA's current disarray. For example, he could examine the affect of President Obama changing the direction of NASA's efforts as set out six years prior by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Six years of work flushed down the toilet, not because Obama necessarily disagreed with Bush's vision, but because he, Obama, did not have one then and does not have one now.
Simply put, Obama doesn't believe in a space program at all. He has used NASA as a stalking horse, a scapegoat and a political football. His "program" is an incoherent jumble of half steps that will lead to nothing. It's curious that somebody who actually worked for NASA would fail to comment on that, not to mention that, left to the current administration, NASA will soon be nothing but a subsidiary of the Environmental Protection Agency.
That's just not constructive. Like Mr. Nelson, I believe we ought to travel to deep space, most likely the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter; but once we get there, it would be much more practical to colonize and develop it, rather than attempt to haul pieces of it back to Earth. In the meantime, perhaps he can reserve his ire for the politicians primarily responsible for much of NASA's current disarray. For example, he could examine the affect of President Obama changing the direction of NASA's efforts as set out six years prior by his predecessor, George W. Bush. Six years of work flushed down the toilet, not because Obama necessarily disagreed with Bush's vision, but because he, Obama, did not have one then and does not have one now.
Simply put, Obama doesn't believe in a space program at all. He has used NASA as a stalking horse, a scapegoat and a political football. His "program" is an incoherent jumble of half steps that will lead to nothing. It's curious that somebody who actually worked for NASA would fail to comment on that, not to mention that, left to the current administration, NASA will soon be nothing but a subsidiary of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Pete Smith
Cypress, TX
No comments:
Post a Comment
Friends - Let 'er rip!