"Its faltering because of attack politics, and a very faulty theoretical base which borders fantasy."

>So you are saying it's faltering because of the kinds of things you are engage in?

No. It is failing because of the Newt's attack on Clinton for Russian involovement in ISS,
conducted by the Space Frontier Foundation, funded by Walt Anderson at som $10 million per year;
The promotion of unrealistic engineering schemes, such as Zubrin's Mars Direct and low cost launchers,
misestimates of the types of launch services needed.

In as much as Goldin wanted to convert the shuttle to the NLS, I suppose that you could include the attacks on
him as well.

>That seems a tad delusion.
>But perhaps you are correct, in which case, godspeed.

That's how I see it; others have different goals, and different views.

""But the Chinese program is flourishing...for what reason, again?"

It's focused like a laser"

>There are advantages of being, focused.
>As there are advantages for dictatorships.

Actually, try a firm theoretical analysis of needs before action is taken and money spent on the development
of space resources.

>It would be interesting to compare the past
>efforts of Soviets in regards to their space programs
>and the current Chinese effort.

Not the same system, so don't get your hopes up the China will collapse as did the Soviet Union.
The Soviet and Chinese space efforts and their political and economic environments bear no comparison.

>Not that know a lot about it, but my impression is
>with the Soviet program it depended on "strong willed"
>individuals that sort beat and inspired the troops- so, essentially courageous, single-mindedness , and basically >psychopathic.

The Soviet effort was definitely personality based, with the intense competition between the General Designers
and inablity to decide leading to its downfall. Insecurity also played a role, as the N1 with the TMK would have given
the Soviet Union leadership.

As far as psychopathic gioes, consider the Mars Society.

>With the Chinese effort it's probably more orderly and
>with a leadership which is fairly easily replacable.

Yes.

">>I don't see the Chinese program as flourishing.
Look again."

>Provide some evidence.
>And while you at it define what you mean by flourishing.

Consider their satellites for all the different types of uses.
Consider the cost and efficiency of their launchers.

">>The Chinese are making slow progress- and they actually want to make slow progress.

That's it exactly: a very focused effort on very focused goals."

>If slow progress is the aim, I would say NASA doing just fine- though much slower progress relative to how much money it >gets compared to the Chinese.

Ah, and therein lies the rub. In the US money is spent in an unfocused manner, currently determined by lobbying rather than be engineering, and the progress is slow and costly. That's why we have Ares1 instead of Direct, and great problems extending from that Bush decision.

>And I would say there is better than slow progress on the detection of NEOs.

The systems are still inadequte to the hazard. We know it has been about 3 to 10 times worse than NASA claaims.
The funding for those trying to define the hazard is inadequate.
I know this through personal contact with them.

E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas