I am the first to admit that many of my past diaries have been, somewhat no strike that: often, my ideas are a bitch to understand let alone respond to. For that I apologize to all fellow Kossacks. Yeah, for the most part, I am in my own little world: but I'm trying.
I am out there, there's no disputing that fact. In many ways I am somewhat like a kid alone in an ivory tower of my own making and choosing but I believe I have something to say about what is quickly becoming an established view regarding NASA funding and the well worn, some would say: worn out, operational model of our current Space and technological Program (s).
Let's attempt to unpack and untangle this debate. We have on the one hand, most prominently, Neil Armstrong and Eugene Ciernan:
...Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide towards mediocrity...
Now, keep in mind: NASA as well as the Russian Federation does indeed have the kind of experience in actual spacecraft operation the Armstrong group describes. On the other hand, the Buzz Aldrin group of astronauts maintain the following:
The President's program will help us be in this endeavor for the long haul.
Now, contrast these two opposing views with Derrick Potts' assertion that:
...The Obama proposal represents a kind of maturation of the program...he's suggesting that NASA be allowed to do the heavy lifting...the high frontier...his (the President's) is taking this program a step further...
For the record: I believe BOTH sides make valid points.
The current space program, if it were to stray too far from the advances in science and technology and our very understanding of our place in the the reality of the universe, mediocrity may indeed be the chief result.
Yet, current global economic, political and social; more pressing concerns, do in fact demand a much more pragmatic approach to this centuries old human ambition to "Know" and effectively "apply" a new common appreciation for what it truly may mean to be an intelligent species created by God to experience an overall evolution towards a readily accessible and general reason.
But, as both sides are right, both sides are overlooking, I argue, a very simple fact: star stuff. To paraphrase the late Dr. Carl Sagan:
...We are (all of us) made of star stuff
Let me bring that down to the Earth of April 15, 2010.
Rimjob's recent diary a well researched and argued entry to this site (thank you by the way) prominently features the affable and capable intelligence of Neil de Grasse Tyson.
In his address to those assembled at the March 31st University at Buffalo Distinguished Speaker's Series, Dr. de Grasse Tyson presents a cogent argument reaffirming NASA's value to America's future.
...NASA is a force of nature like none other...
I agree, yet, for those of you are still reading (thank you by the way), please consider the President's remarks made during the recent Nuclear Summit. Gerrick Kennedy of the Los Angeles Times summarizes that:
...World leaders at the summit endorsed Obama's call for securing all nuclear materials around the globe within four years, though few details were given for how they planned on achieving that goal...(the President remarked)..."the American people will be safer and the world will be more secure" as a result...
I maintain, the details Gerrick Kennedy observed in his article as lacking in the Nuclear Summit's results, are in fact, as plain as the nose on our collective faces: if only we would apply ourselves and our hopes to that end and that end alone.
The geo-political and socioeconomic context described by Dr. deGrasse Tyson:
...why are we spending money up there when we have problems down here...i'm just looking down here: i'm fine...
is precisely the same kind of persistent Cold War climate our President means to reconfigure through his landmark efforts in bringing together 47 nations for the specific purpose of a joint collaboration designed to ultimately benefit ALL.
The implication I am painting here is: 1) The current Cold War mentality of a "balance of power" is the prime target our President's recent summit seeks to deconstruct, internationalize and secede from: a Cold War status Quo de-established by the creation of an International Counter Climate of global cooperation solely along the lines of personal courage and mutual trust.
Secondly, the mechanism for re-configuring that persistent and expensive general International posture will not be found ONLY in Nuclear De-Proliferation, but in an additional International effort specifically targeted towards an entirely Global interposition from a current general posture of competition and comeuppance to one of combined mutual and International economic and political self-interest.
Third, joint space and scientific exploration, on an International scale is precisely the most effective instrument available NOW, that has the greatest possible chance of realigning what we were with what we ALL seek to become as a human race of individuals seeking to know collectively, what none of us knows by ourselves.
If the reader of this diary has gotten this far: thank you again for your patience, I am almost done.
Derrick Potts on a recent Keith Olbermann installment of his "Countdown" MSNBC talk show observed that:
...International Space Station Construction is complete...
I disagree. I argue that the International Space Station will NEVER be complete until: a)every nation on Earth is officially represented in both participation and formal continuous commitment and b)The resulting low Earth Orbiting Community is completely self sufficient and prosperous in its own right.
Moreover, there currently exists a plethora of challenges which must also be dealt with sooner than later. We need some kind of pulsed laser enhanced extra-molecular solution to effectively protect those brave enough to live for extended periods in such an environment. The technology for this kind of application has been around, in bits and pieces for almost 20 years. Before we mature, our separate ideas must first coalesce and mature. In this regard then the old adage comes to mind:
...Many hands lightens the load...
I would hasten to add the more nations involved (47+ and counting) the cheaper the overall endeavor, the more implicit the inherent control for peace and the greater likelihood of sustained success for all parties in both the short and long term.
And this of course goes to our current dilemma regarding an international transparency pertaining to fissile materials in those nations currently seeking nuclear capability as well as those peoples who already enjoy that dubious distinction: whether from a matter of public record or not.
Agreements could be reached, treaties signed, two state solutions invigorated and arrived at successfully if there was but a common grand enough vision that saw not only the horizon: but the land, the world, the universe beyond as an attainable goal any nation, man woman or child could reach without war or terror.
Our President's current initiative is a brave and pragmatic course which I agree we must take. However, I argue that any course whose ultimate aim is global cooperation must also be an open enough path where all nations are actively encouraged (subsidized if that's what it takes) to participate or contribute what they can to a grand adventure as old as our interconnected trans-millennial historical record. The three questions we all ask, no matter who, what or when we are:
Who am I, who are we and what does it all mean?
Where I am right now, its now 6:25 am Michigan time. I've been at this enough, I think.
Good night and good luck
Tom
Ann Arbor