Total Members Voted: 42
Voting closed: 12/16/2017 02:47 am
Poll is flawed. My answer is ALL of the choices. No agency SHOULD be involved but all of the named ones WILL be involved. Once one gets involved you want all of the mentioned ones.Was tempted to just edit it so that was an allowable choice. Still might.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned HUD.
Quote from: Lar on 11/15/2017 08:39 pmPoll is flawed. My answer is ALL of the choices. No agency SHOULD be involved but all of the named ones WILL be involved. Once one gets involved you want all of the mentioned ones.Was tempted to just edit it so that was an allowable choice. Still might.First, why do you say no agency should be involved in enabling space settlement? I am curious.Second, no it's not flawed. I didn't limit people's selection to one vote - you can, in fact, vote for all of them (It's the reason I said agencies rather than agency - I voted for a collection of them). That said, I would argue that saying "All the choices" is itself flawed, because one of those choices, choice A (None, there is no reason for the US government to enable space settlement) assumes a position that is contradictory to all of the other options. (I am sorry if that wasn't clear, I kind of assumed it would be, but...)
Disappointing thread this. As if the USA is the only country capable of enabling space settlement (I speak as someone from Europe).
Am I the only one who has figured out that this thread is actually a joke?The FCC is on the list. The FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. You think they're going to settle planets?Goofball thread, not to be taken seriously.
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 11/15/2017 08:49 pmI'm surprised nobody mentioned HUD.The main reason I left out HUD is because right now, HUD doesn't have any area that is considering items related to enabling space settlement. I will acknowledge it's conceivable that they could play a role in enabling space settlement, but they don't have an internal organization that is set up to even engage on this issue
The FCC feels they have a role in communications licensing. Does their writ extend beyond GEO? How far beyond? Does it extend to L2 (the location, not our wonderful resource)... to Luna? To Mars? Did you want to argue that communication isn't required for settlement?
Quote from: Lar on 11/16/2017 06:39 pmThe FCC feels they have a role in communications licensing. Does their writ extend beyond GEO? How far beyond? Does it extend to L2 (the location, not our wonderful resource)... to Luna? To Mars? Did you want to argue that communication isn't required for settlement?This highlights an issue for us Europeans: the implication that US laws and regulations apply everywhere. And the thread / poll ignores things like the Outer Space Treaty (the flaws of which are many), etc. [ I know you are pushing a point for effect but still ]Hence, I suspect, the short shrift given above by woods170--- Tony
Quote from: woods170 on 11/16/2017 06:29 amDisappointing thread this. As if the USA is the only country capable of enabling space settlement (I speak as someone from Europe).You're missing the point. This thread is about US government agencies participation, not the concept of space settlement. If the US doesn't participate, then other nations can lead the way.
Quote from: RonM on 11/16/2017 03:53 pmQuote from: woods170 on 11/16/2017 06:29 amDisappointing thread this. As if the USA is the only country capable of enabling space settlement (I speak as someone from Europe).You're missing the point. This thread is about US government agencies participation, not the concept of space settlement. If the US doesn't participate, then other nations can lead the way.No, I'm not missing the point. Had the involvement of other-than-US-agencies been considered the thread title would have been something like this:"Space Agencies and Space Settlement". The "US" part would have been left out.Despite the name "NASASpaceflight.com", this site and its forum are about everything spaceflight worldwide. Not just the USA. The ludicrous focus of this thread on US space agencies does not fit well within the international scope of this forum.
The author is a US politician (wannabe?) I agree, though, it does leave out everything else (and the UN and other international bodies such as the WHO, the postal union, etc...). You could start another thread if you were so inclined.