nero wrote:The problem with big, uncertain projects is that no private enterprise can not do them. So it is natural that it is the state that can must take the risk. And even the project fails, much of useful, public domain technology is created that bring benefit for the common cause. Like teflon.
And it may be that project Mars is too expensive for a single nation. So co-operation of several nations is needed. Well, in a smaller scale ESA in Europe.
But then co-operation is not communism, not socialism.
But you Americans have very limited knowledge of those things. Some of Americans think that Denmark is a socialist country.
So it goes.
If you look at something like F-35 or Meteor missile programs, they are both cooperation of large number of specialized private companies to achieve a mammoth project for the governments paying the bill.
This is tax money in good use - to raise money to fund R&D projects to produce unique and phenomenal products that none of the companies would dare dream of on their own.
When however you use a public organization like NASA or ESA...
ESA's director said something along the lines of "we must not travel to other planets... ...but try to make Earth the best place it can be" or something along those lines. That's a great attitude for a director of a space program. Let's just sit back and watch at the skies with telescopes...
NASA on the other hand are the fathers of the fiasco that ended up being the Space Shuttle program. "This is a little bit like a reusable space plane and it's also a space station.. and a bunch of stuff, little bit for everyone". Then half the stuff that had to be accommodated in the design were hardly ever utilized and it cost like hell without any advantages.
The only shame was that it took so long to retire the program in favor of putting the money to better use.
The thing with public organizations is that they tend to fall victims to ideological and political decision making. Not that private companies aren't immune to all of that and internal division level fighting but at least with a private company you can assign a 'cleaner' to prune out the parts that don't work and rationalize the operation. It is inherently impossible to rationalize things in public organizations and medals of highest order should be given to anyone who's ever succeeded in rationalizing the operations of a public organization.
I watched the original series in reruns when I was five/six years old and, eventually, thought it was a lot of fun.
Cut to 1987 and watching the first season of TNG when I was in college.
I thought it was pretty terrible. Even now, it doesn't really hold up..weakest of all the seasons. What killed it for me is the moralizing was so blatant they were slamming it over your head ("This bad thing happened on this planet because they lost their ozone layer! See? We're so topical!"). No real subtlety. To be fair, some of the original episodes had that in the last season but this was so obvious it was eye-rolling. I thought for sure it was going to be cancelled because most of my Trekkie acquaintances felt the same.
I was a little shocked when they got a second season. But, the second season was more watchable than the first. By the third season it hit its stride and was pretty fun to watch.
Still, I prefer the holy trinity of Kirk, Spock and Bones myself.
The bedfellows politics made are never strange. It only seems that way to those who have not watched the courtship.
I just wanted to say that I would like to see a series for a change where Milky Way isn't primarily habited by English speaking Social Democrats that are just sitting there waiting for an invitation to form a galaxy wide government..
Kameolontti wrote:I just wanted to say that I would like to see a series for a change where Milky Way isn't primarily habited by English speaking Social Democrats that are just sitting there waiting for an invitation to form a galaxy wide government..