Re: Hey Homer

On Mar 14, 10:26 am, IHeartSpam <PleaseEmai...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Homer Hickam wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:23 am, btpage0...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:39 pm, Homer Hickam <hhic...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:17 pm, rich hammett <bubbaric...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Minun olisi pitänyt tietää, olisi pitänyt tietää,
olisi pitänyt tietää KUKA SINÄ OLET, Homer Hickam:
On Mar 12, 5:11 pm, Matthew Hennig <ma...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Did you know you can now watch October Sky online for free?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1630/october-sky-october-sky
It has limited commercial interruptions.  Looks like decent quality for
an online broadcast source.
MH
--
Ten of Spades
Aggee Fedayeen Chief
Supreme Ruler of the Obvious
RSFC Rookie of the Year 2005
Time Magazine Person of the Year 2006
"We just got outplayed today.  That's the bottom line.  And we got
outcoached."
  - OU Head Coach Bob Stoops following the Texas A&M game, Nov 9, 2002
Well...  I presume  Universal Studios gave them permission to do
this.  I'm glad more folks will have the opportunity to see it and
then, for those who want the real (and even better) story, read the
book.
I'm always astonished at the things that still come out on this story
that I never thought anybody would care about.  This was sent to me
today.
"Homer...  Thought you'd want to know that a well-known composer has
written a piece based on Rocket Boys/October Sky..."
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2008/03/06/entertainment/enterta....
Here's where you can go to listen to it.
http://www.alfred-music.com/product_info.php?products_id=39&osCsid=50...
As my wife Linda says, - You started it, Homer, so you might as well
stop fighting it and enjoy it.
He's a decent band composer, from what I remember.  Although I
may be confusing him with Claude T Smith.  It _would_ be a
Huntsville band commissioning it.
Congratulations!  I think everywhere but Huntsville is trying to
pretend the space race and the trips to the moon never happened.
rich
--
-to reply, it's hot not warm
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\  Rich Hammett      http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/    He always pictured himself a libertarian, which to my
\    way of thinking means ``I want the liberty to grow rich
/    and you can have the liberty to starve''. It's easy to
\    believe that no one should depend on society for help
/    when you yourself happen not to need such help.
I fear you're right.  Looks like I'm going to have to put Josh Thurlow
and Red Helmet and all the stuff I enjoy writing about aside and try
to influence Sen. Obama on the importance of human spaceflight to our
country.  Sen. Obama seems to be pretty much ignorant of the fact that
we're on our way back to the moon.  To him, it seems all NASA is about
is inspiration for kids and pure science.  Therefore, he wants to cut
NASA (wait til he finds out it's only 1/2 of 1% of the budget!).  I
know someone who is a advisor to his campaign and (sigh) I guess I
better try to turn him around just in case he actually does get
elected.  If he shuts the Ares/Orion down, he cedes space to the
Russians and the Chinese for a generation, perhaps forever.  What he
and so many don't understand is that space is not just somewhere to
inspire children, it's a place to do business and gather resources,
especially energy and fundamental knowledge that can be applied across
the board.  We're headed toward a very rough spot when all the
economic and societal policies of the past start to converge on us to
our detriment.  If we don't jumpstart ourselves in space, we're headed
for big trouble.  Let's hope he comes to understand that but I
wonder...
I was watching a program a while back (don't remember what it was
unfortunately) that was detailing the tremendous boon from the space
program in the form of inventions, which lead to commercial products
which lead to a boon in the economy, in addition to technological
advances in other areas.  Why this concept is understood and held
important by so few, I will never understand.

I think a lot of people simply aren't wired for long-range conceptual
planning.

Brent

True, especially if "President of the United States", "United States
Senator" or "United States Congressperson" is appended to their name.

H3

I agree with the idea that space is important, but why are you so sure
it has to be a government-sponsored arena?  As soon as someone shows
that there is a profit to be made from space, things will get going...
they already are, to a certain degree, right?

I remember an article a while back where... hmmm, I think it was Rutan
who said he thought he could get to Mars and back for about 80
billion... what is that, less than 10% of the estimated NASA cost
(meaning less than 1% of the eventual NASA cost, snort!>?

I mean, I know you worked <or work?> for NASA and have loyalties to the
program, but isn't there at least *some* truth to the idea that anything
a private company can do, the government can do at 5 times the cost?  I
realize that there was a period when it simply couldn't *be* private
companies, but haven't we started to leave that period behind?

Peace.

I don't work for NASA which I think is fairly well known. I did work
for the agency for 18 years, then retired ten years ago to focus on
writing.

With that out of the way, let me see if I can answer your comment.

I think there's no doubt that private enterprise could take humans
back to the moon or on to Mars and do it cheaper than the government.
This is for a lot of reasons but I suppose the main one is that NASA,
like all federal agencies, must contend with the thousands of
regulations that bind its fiscal and procedural hands. It must also
answer to Congress and is not allowed to do anything risky (OK, the
Shuttle but that's a whole different discussion).

I believe Burt Rutan could certainly build the machines to go to the
moon and Mars and beyond but he and other private companies have
little incentive in terms of profit motive to do so. Right now, the
only possibility of a small profit in human spaceflight is by sending
tourists on sub-orbital hops. Virgin Galactic is spending money to
make that happen.

But to take humans into orbit, or to the moon, or to Mars? There is
no likely profit in that right now. It's too difficult and too
expensive with the technology available which essentially is the same
chemically-propelled rockets of fifty + years ago, spiffed up a
little.

So that means, if we are to progress in space, government should prime
the pump and build the technology and infrastructure that private
enterprise might borrow in the future. There are national reasons to
go back to the moon and eventually to Mars, just as there is a
national reason to build nuclear submarines and station them all
across the seas of the world. But to read some speculative fiction
on at least one very excellent reason to go back to the moon, I can't
help but recommend that wonderful, exciting, sexy, and page-turning
novel titled Back to the Moon written by a FORMER NASA engineer, one
whose name you might recognize.

By the way, private enterprise is very much in the business in terms
of spacecraft such as telecommunications sats that are fully funded,
built, and launched by private companies without any participation
whatsoever by NASA. In fact, it is a multi-billion dollar industry
and big, big money is made.

H3

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?
    ... > Prior to that private firms such as Ebay or the New York Times or the Los ... > NASA probably won't get peanuts for it in the market. ... should also be sold to private enterprise. ... > The Moon base and private projects are plenty of work for all. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: How do we keep Hubble up there?
    ... Auction the Hubble Space Telescope. ... Prior to that private firms such as Ebay or the New York Times or the Los ... NASA probably won't get peanuts for it in the market. ... The Moon base and private projects are plenty of work for all. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... The one other close location in this solar system, ... For example, in the case of water alone, then on the Moon we do not ... On the other hand Mars has tons of water. ... >> will only become another NASA mini-disaster that will set back any ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA, spaceflighters living in a dream world
    ... Moon or Mars? ... NASA plans to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, ... Independent panel is reviewing plans and looking at "potential ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Improved lunar landing architecture
    ... >> Overlooking the fact that it may not actually have water. ... A noticeable chunk out of NASA's two yearly trips to the Moon. ... No point in going to Mars ... works for NASA to one day land people on Mars. ...
    (sci.space.policy)