| Saturday,
May 6, 2000 Another day I won't have much time. Alas.
Here is a copy of mail I can do nothing with. Please don't ask; I
cannot run a personal research service without sending bills you can't
afford.
help, i need driver installtion for hard driver
maxtor 'max-blast plus, 1.11m' thanks!
(name deleted to avoid embarrassment...)
Dr. Pournelle,
Thanks for your very interesting and thought
provoking article calling for the United States to rebuild its space
capabilities and only then return to Mars. Will it be expensive?
Certainly. Will we make mistakes. Certainly. However, I believe the
process that you've suggested rebuilds the infrastructure necessary if we
are to return to space - this time to stay.
Others have made the case for one-shot or similar
type missions to Mars (see for example Robert Zubin's "The Case For
Mars"). These later types of approaches; cheap, fast, and likely to
hold the public's attention, although attractive, don't rebuild the
foundation necessary to support a permanent return to space. Moreover, it
appears to me they are substantially more risky than the studied,
incremental approach you advocate.
How do you propose we bring this about? As in all
journeys, a first step is needed. Restarting the space program with this
new focus will be inherently difficult, if not impossible given the
current social and political climate. I'm interested, but how do we
interest "Joe six-pack" and (pardon my expression) the wards of
the welfare state (and related vested interests at all levels of
government)?
Sign me up!
Cheers,
Art Russell
mailto:artrussell@mindspring.com http://education.gsu.edu/spehar
"Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
in the Solar System" - Robert A. Heinlein
He refers to my Intellectual
Capital article. The best way to start is to revive the X programs:
real X programs, not the "X-33" farce which was an enormous
subsidy for an aerospace industry. True X programs take the best
technology available, build the best ship possible; build 3 tail numbers;
test hell out of them; and learn what we need to do to advance the art.
This is appropriate for a government to do -- someone must invest in our
grandchildren's future, and quarterly bottom line doesn't allow much for
that kind of investment -- but government mucks up big projects. Make them
small, definite, and out in the desert where empires do not grow well.
From: Jeffrey Camiel [mailto:camiel@sgi.com] Sent:
Wednesday, May 03, 2000 7:28 PM To: 'jerrypournelle@intellectualcapital.com'
Subject: Are you ever correct!
I work in the high-tech industry in Silicon Valley.
It is truly incredible how bad our understanding and implementation of
project management has become. I have yet to see a complex system rollout
actually accomplish the user requirements. Yet the industry places no
value on project management expertise. If the tech industry looks to the
computer industry for project management expertise they will be unhappily surprised.
Your methodology of decomposition to the smallest tasks and perfect each
task and then moving on is great project methodology but high flyers can't
seem to get away from the instant gratificationof the big picture
Actually, the step-by-step approach to Mars, reminds
me of 2001: A space oddesy.
Great article.
Thanks. The management gap is severe; I could
only hint at that in the Intellectual Capital column.
TOP
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
