wirelessguru1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The newer technology offered by the
> commercial sector getting involved in space flight
>
> > (though not yet space exploration... or maybe
> so if you include the failed Cosmos 1)
> > will start to bring down the cost of space
> flight in general, even for NASA.
>
> IMHO that is only wishful thinking in your part!

no its commercial thinking... this has happened in the past in many many areas and it will happen again in this area

>
> It makes good PR, but the issues associated with
> safety, liabilities, finger pointing, etc, etc,
> are all going against your position...

All the same was said about aircraft flight in the beginning and you say 'etc, etc' in such a glib way as if there is a mountain of evidence in only your favour. Open the other eye, there is evidence in my favour too... the example I have given about the early aircraft industry is a very good one, but you have given no example of 'issues associated with safety, liabilities, finger pointing, etc, etc' holding technology and commerce back over a period of say 100 years. In fact this is a business opportunity, WHEN the prices come down... I'll be doing it.

>
> > Then when the commercial sector can deal with
> getting people in to space, NASA the
> > ESA and others can concentrate on solving the
> next level of problems, inter solar travel.
>
> No within a debt based socio-economic system with
> the present growing energy costs! IMHO your
> idealism is not real in terms of execution!!!
>

Good sound bite, no fact. In my experience your pessimism is not real in terms of the real world, and as I've said above you haven't given any examples (and no strawmen please if you decide to)

> > It has happened before. In todays societ you
> might hop on a commercial airliner
> > to get to a conference, but back in the days
> when there were only two or three
> > specialist companies that made aircraft it
> was firmly in the hands of the pioneers.
>
> True, I will agree with you about that,

very magnanomous of you

> but what
> is different now is that the socio-economic models
> that we have been using for these last few
> centuries are going exponential and, therefore,
> can no longer scale as is in the 21st century.
> Note that all the data supports my more
> "realistic" position on this vs. your idealism!

Again I need evidence of what you say, though the socio-economic model has changed everything you are saying about the future is based on supposition. Again putting yourself on the pedistal of being in the 'realistic' possition, whilst kicking me in to the possition of idealist seems harsh.

>
> > From a personal perspective as well, I don't
> think society is quite ready to explode
> > in on itself at the moment.
>
> Well there are some significant global
> socio-economic changes going on right now. For
> example, for these last 5+ years, China and
> India's economies have grown much, much faster in
> real terms than USA and Europe...
>

Is this really a problem? Those economies NEED to grow to support the peoples of the said countries. Have you Visited India? I have? Have you visited China? I'm exceptionally well travelled and I've seen some horrendous poverty. Maybe thats why I'm an optimist (note not an idealist... an idealist bases their thinking on ideals.... I'm not doing that, I'm saying comercial forces will win out, I've got a degree in business studies so I can agrue this point if you wish). I've seen terrible poverty but I've also seen the strength of the human spirit.

> So there is a global shift of economic power going
> on...
>

yes as I've said... and I don't think more influence and power going to third world contries is necessarily a bad thing.

> > If it happens (and remember the last great
> empire to collapse in on itself was the
> > British, and it has hardly been cataclysmic),
>
>
> True, I will agree with you about that one also.
>

Again thanks

> > I think today it will only really be
> > noticeable by a shift in power, ideas and
> information,
> > and not by the bloody upsurges of the past.
>
> I don't know about that since History tends to
> repeat it self over and over again, it is always
> the same old story to a certain extend, but with
> different players. The game of life...

Actually the old 'history repeats itself' is over used. On a small scale it is true, and I think it shows just how much of an animal the human being is, and how much instict is in the genes so to speak. However, that old saying doesn't really work on a large scale... we always keep making some progress (even if we cause damage in other areas)

Now go on WG, turn that frown upside down

If you are always glumly looking at the floor, ok you might avoid some of the dog muck, but you'll never see the wonders of the sky (and clean shoes are over-rates!)