I saw this article (The Space Review) linked in /. today.
It (perhaps dramatically) touches on some relevant issues and lists an interesting idea (joint membership fees).
Full Version: Space Review article
I can't speak for the other organizations but as far as The Planetary Society goes, Huang errs in claiming that we are pro-science at the expense of human exploration and in his implication that we believe it's a zero-sum game. Clearly it is not. I'll point you to an Op-Ed that board member Jim Bell wrote for Scientific American, in which he concludes:
And Lou Friedman is frequently on record as saying that we support the Vision for Space Exploration -- we just do not support how the vision is being gutted of science in its implementation.
--Emily
QUOTE
Robotic craft have worked well for the first age of space exploration, when simply flying a probe past a planet or landing on an alien terrain was enough to make dramatic discoveries. That era, however, is coming to an end. Now we are entering a new age of space exploration in which we must look more carefully at such planetary landscapes, as well as at what lies underneath them, analyzing the rocks, soils and gases of distant worlds in greater detail to flesh out the history of our solar system. This kind of science absolutely requires human explorers. In this new era, we will need brave people with brains to boldly go where no robot can take us.
And Lou Friedman is frequently on record as saying that we support the Vision for Space Exploration -- we just do not support how the vision is being gutted of science in its implementation.
--Emily
The article "finds" a controversy that doesn't exist and suggests a "solution". Also, summarizing support for private spaceflight as "pro-private" is grossly inaccurate, in my opinion. It's actually more "pro-human" than state-financed spaceflight, when few chosen astronauts can fly, and others can only "feel proud for the humanity".
It's somewhat like trying to find a controversy between drivers of cars, trucks and trains. Different machines have different purposes.
It's somewhat like trying to find a controversy between drivers of cars, trucks and trains. Different machines have different purposes.
QUOTE (Pavel @ Jul 30 2007, 08:57 AM) 
It's somewhat like trying to find a controversy between drivers of cars, trucks and trains. Different machines have different purposes.
That's a very astute observation Pavel.
QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Jul 30 2007, 09:00 PM)
That's a very astute observation Pavel.
I would respectfully say that the comparison is off he mark. As the article points out, manned and unmanned programs both depend on a finite resource (cash). Grand presidential ego trips cut seriously into unmanned projects. I suspect the level of concern/controversy goes up incrementally with amount of income derived from the relevant "model". Web space fans can, of course, enjoy all models.
That sounds like you're starting a debate on manned vs unmanned there Babakm - but of course, nobody would do that here as it's not allowed.
Bad analogy : We all support the same football team - but some of us disagree with the starting lineup, some of us disagree with the substitutions, some of us disagree with the formation the coach plays.
But we all chear when the team wins, and we all cry when it drops out of the cup.
Doug
Bad analogy : We all support the same football team - but some of us disagree with the starting lineup, some of us disagree with the substitutions, some of us disagree with the formation the coach plays.
But we all chear when the team wins, and we all cry when it drops out of the cup.
Doug
QUOTE (babakm @ Jul 30 2007, 08:09 PM)
I would respectfully say that the comparison is off he mark. As the article points out, manned and unmanned programs both depend on a finite resource (cash).
However, the amount of the budget money spent on all space exploration combined is not fixed. And the private exploration takes money from a different pool.
QUOTE
Grand presidential ego trips cut seriously into unmanned projects.
OK, that's the real controversy, unlike those imagined in the article, and Doug's reaction confirms it
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.