Our Fading Space Program...


Gene Steinberg

Forum Super Hero
Staff member
So when we want to the moon in 1969, you must have felt assured we'd be moving on to other worlds in the following few decades.

Now it doesn't appear any of that will happen until the next decade, if then.

How do you feel, folks, about the serious downgrading of our space program?
 
If the western governments, corporations and wealthy can't exploit it (i.e. make a quick, cheap and easy buck from it as was done with the natural resources and aboriginal peoples - all of whom were merely considered "collateral damage" by the government and majority of the citizenry, if "considered" at all - during the opening of the North American western territories merely the century-before-last) then "they" are just not going to bother with it. In contemplation of todays technology gap, it's just too costly a venture for anyone to "pull off." Until the cost of getting up into space dramatically decreases, and until the reliability of the space craft used to make the journey's become truly, reliably, cost-effectively "safe" (which will never happen as long as they are recklessly designed around the use of fossil fuel-based rockets) and until something super-valuable and/or vital ("unobtainium," perhaps? :rolleyes: ) is discovered/detected somewhere (possibly within the asteroid belt) that will make a very select few extremely rich(er), we (the little people) are destined to remain forever earth-bound.

I don't mean to seem a "wet blanket" here, but I don't have a tenth of the optimism regarding these issues that I had as a boy growing up. STAR TREK (and I have always loved STAR TREK) made it all seem so neat, clean, straight-forward and technologically easy, albeit (in the mythology) only after humanity nearly pays the ultimate price for it's sins with a catastrophic "third World War." I fear that the world as portrayed in films like Alien, Aliens, Alien3, Blade Runner, Outland and Avatar is far more realistically representative of how humanity's future here (as in the film Blade Runner) and (as in the remainder of the films sited) in the vast, far reaches of space would likely turn out. The corporations would "foot the bill" and "pave the way. . ." if that "way" is ever to be "paved" at all.

Another thought to ponder is that, just maybe, humanity's destiny does not lie "out there." Perhaps our "plates" are so full here that we should be concentrating on perfecting those aspects of ourselves as both individuals and as an entire species that prevent us from peacefully, objectively (it is my opinion, by the way, that Ayn Rand and the philosophy of objectiveism should be standard curriculumm from eighth grade up for all students) seeing the "big picture" of the benefits and diversity that almost certainly awaits us should we ever "grow up". And yet, if history provides any example to us at all, it is that these things are seemingly not in our nature to be able to successfully achieve. I do not make these statements lightly but, rather, with a heavy heart.
 
I rather think we are meant to visit the stars, but we just have to figure out the best way to do it, and, one hopes, find some politicians with the vision to make it so.
 
I truly admire your optimism for this subject Gene, and I know that your heart and head are certainly in the right place (God knows that space and every last thing discovered in it, irrespective of it's nature, should belong to all of the people) but, I just don't think that the government(s) will be the one('s) leading the true charge into "the final frontier." I'm not saying that our government will, by any means, be "out of the game." Obviously, they have clear intentions of remaining a major player, planning for the future and gearing up for that role as I type this.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44708877?GT1=43001

But, their mission has been, is, and will continue to be, essentially, a "scientific" one, and there's just no money to be made in the field of empirical science - never has been. That's why their hands are so deeply jammed into the tax payer's pockets. The simple truth is that science just doesn't pay - lucrative free enterprise does - and I believe that that's why humanity has been, and is yet, only crawling into space this late in the game, despite the enormous amounts of tax payer monies that have been appropriated (not that I'm saying that I'd prefer that those tax dollars be invested in the war machine instead, understand) and poured into the effort. Once, and if, the government(s) decide(s) to reveal the true scope of scientific discoveries to industry (and, one would hope, also the world en-mass) only then (in my opinion) can space truly begin to be opened up for "people," and to eventual colonization.

Please don't think that I'm attempting to down play the roll of science in all of this. It's blatantly, ridiculously obvious that science and technology are absolutely essential in this endeavor. These clearly, truly are the "golden years of discovery," as it were - both scientifically and technologically. But, I believe that, so far, they have been, and are discovering things in Earth's orbit, on the surfaces of Luna, Mars and other celestial bodies throughout our solar system (perhaps even in other solar systems by now) that they never, ever, in their wildest dreams, thought might possibly be there, and they're not being forthright with the public in regards to (at the very least) those discoveries. In fact, if anything, they exert great effort to deny or debunk anything that someone else might stumble across after having analyzed their own data - other than anyone connected and/or entrenched, loyal to and dependent on that system for their own advantage/survival/livelihood/agenda. And, if the public were out there too, it would be nigh impossible for them to keep their secrets for very long, nor could they maintain "plausible deniability" for the purposes of same. These suspicions are what causes me to believe that neither any single (or group there of) politician(s), or any of the world's other governments will be the one's to bring "common people" into space.

The military industrial complex is far too intractably involved in our "public" space program in order for the public to be truly reassured or trusting that we are being told everything (or anything, really) that they've already, thus far, learned and discovered concerning the true nature of the bodies and phenomena they've been "scientifically" investigating, and all the while using citizen taxpayer's money to do it with. Those types of things are considered strictly "need to know", and from NASA, the military and government's vantage point, neither you nor I have a "need to know." I suppose that mindset should be expected and, from their reference point, completely and "justifiably" understandable, in that the military would naturally want and expect "first crack" at anything discovered that might prove, in the least way, advantageously adaptable for the purposes of defense technology/national security. (Can't risk folks deciding to not pay their taxes or show up for work now, can we? Why. . . whom would foot the bill, then?) Logically speaking (typing), to them, it would seem recklessly imprudent to, at this stage, turn much, if any, of this information over to industry, because industry would jump at the chance to exploit anything and everything that they could to make even more bountiful amounts of money from. But, that would, at some point, require "common" people (unless androids or "Replicants" were to suddenly become feasible somehow) to go out "there" and perform tasks, whether it be mining (my first guess) or something else, that would require colonization and support services, thus requiring even further public involvement that would lead back unavoidably to where the issue of "need to know" would rear up again. Rather a vicious circle in logic, I concede.

The only solution I can envisage to this "merry-go-'round" is total truth, and openness. However, I have yet to see or hear either of these things from my government in my entire life, (unless for politically expedient reasons) so I harbor little hope for it now, or anytime in the foreseeable future, alas.
 
I think it sucks too, Gene. But I just can't see any other way around having to just wait - like we've waited our entire lives, already. Though it would really disappoint me, it wouldn't surprise me if we never get to see it in our lifetimes.
 
Well, I suppose Aeryn Sun, Pa'u Zotoh Zhaan, and maybe even Chiana. :)

And for people who have no clue whereof I speak, feel free to check out Netflix streaming or your favorite DVD rental repository.
 
I don't know. I've been known to become bored from time to time. I think that I could be easily swayed by the lovely Aeryn Sun. Well, I'd give it my best, anyway. :D
 
Funny. I never did see the show when it was originally produced. My son, home from Madrid, began to watch them via Netflix streaming. Since we've written our own science fiction novels together (and have similar tastes in such fare), I decided to see what it was all about. So after a marathon of several weeks, I caught the original 88 episodes, but had to rent the mini-series that wrapped the series, "Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars," because it wasn't available for streaming. Curious. But it was a fun ride.
 
Not having seen "the show when it was originally produced" is what's most common, I think - and probably explains why the show was canceled. :(
 
Part of the problem is that the network kept shifting the time slots, I take it. No doubt publicity was at a minimum. What made things worse was the fact that "Farscape" had a broad series arc that played out over the four year run. The final episode included a cliffhanger, and apparently fans demanded resolution. So they took what they planned for a full season, and rolled it into a mini-series that was, essentially, the equivalent of four episodes in playing time.

But unresolved cliffhangers are symptoms of the acts of unfeeling TV executives. Maybe they'll do a TV movie of "V" to resolve that show's curious conclusion, but I'm sure the chances are on the low end of zero. The re-made series never had the cult influence to make such a thing possible.
 
You're absolutely correct about the changing time slots. I never saw the series again (so I have no idea what the conclusion was or wasn't) past the first couple episodes of the third season because "SciFi" kept flipping it "'round and 'round" and I just couldn't keep up.

I also agree with your take on unresolved cliffhangers. Look at original STAR TREK. The series just began - full-blown. No back story (until the 16th episode; "The Menagerie - Parts 1 & 2,") on who these people were, how or why any of them happened to be there, and then it only informed the audience of a much earlier mission of the Enterprise (the crew of which just happened to have a certain familiar Vulcan as the ship's third in command) and it was never even specified as to what year they were supposedly in. They just used "stardates" and let the question of "when" remain nebulous. When NBC pulled the plug for the last time, the series just flat ended - no inference, resolution or cliffhanger. In retrospect, perhaps that was the best way for the series to have ended because that may have contributed to the fan base voraciously craving more.

And then. . . ten very long years later. . . we got STAR TREK: The Motion Picture. . . which is my personal favorite of all of the STAR TREK feature films, by the way. In fact, if ever you want to talk STAR TREK TOS, I'm game.
 
Back
Top