Re: the un-economics of space travel

From: Nathan Gant (NGANT17_at_peoplepc.com)
Date: 01/31/05 

Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 00:45:48 GMT

?greenie31@juno[spambait].com <greenie31@juno[spambait].com>

"But it would be cool if you could. Lowering the cost of access to LEO is
the first step to serving
that, and many other ends. Without it, the rest doesn't matter."

Escaping the gravity of the earth is quite an expensive undertaking in terms
of energy costs. How
do you recoup those costs? Simple biz question. I don't expect a rational
answer here, maybe a
little character-assassination but nothing substantial in terms of
addressing the actual issue.

"Do you know what other government agencies burn through in a year in
comparison? I don't
think you do."

You mean, like the CIA or NSA or DHS? A lot of black-op budgeting here, am
I supposed to
take a wild guess or get a top-secret clearance first?

Greg D. Moore (Strider) <mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com>
"The question isn't how much is SPENT, but the value. Many people don't see
the value of the
money spent, be it a penny or 3 pennies or anything...you need a better
argument than saying, "but
it's only a penny"."

Agreed, and a penny saved is a penny earned. But I'd have to add that Pres.
JFK had the most
rational economic plan for space exploration. He wanted to pool our
national resources with the Soviets in
1963 for a joint moon mission. In fact, that was what his Apollo Program
was supposed to do,
before NASA helped to knock him off. The Soviets were willing and ready,
but NASA was
fighting Kennedy tooth and nail to avoid it.

The problem is that every nation is competing against the other nation in
space, completely
counter to JFK's ideal. No one here seems to understand this. Do I have to
repeat the link at
 prouty.org? We can always start a new thread on this, too.

>But still not as much as one might think. It is inordinately difficult to
work with and tend to eat
machine tools.

"It is machineable, however. And completely cleanly machineable with EDM,
waterjet cutting,
laser cutting, etc., the tools for which are now becoming ubiquitous and
cheap by machineshop
standards."

The big problem I know with titanium in the machine-shop (I worked in a
precision ***-metal
machine shop for 2 years) is that the grind-dust tends to ignite, most
knife-makers are aware of
this problem with titanium.

"Effort to transport material in space is generally measured in velocity
change or energy, not raw distance.
It doesn't take 10 times more energy to go ten times further, it takes 10
times longer. It takes both
more time and more energy on the Earth's surface..."

"Generally measured"? As in "generally" transported? What difference does
terminology make if
there are no empirical results to base your terminology on? Also, as stated
above, escaping the
gravity of the earth is quite an expensive undertaking in terms of energy
costs. How do you
recoup those costs? Simple biz question. So far none of the brilliant
Einsteins here have an answer.

"If you tone the attitude down and ask some questions you will probably get
it explained to you,
and you can analyze those answers once you get them. There are huge
arguments about
the economic returns of various space development and resources useage, and
you can probably
learn enough to comment intelligently on those within a reasonably short
time."

A welfare-recipient is a welfare recipient, NASA had a chance to earn my
respect in Oct. 1963,
they failed, so I don't see my attitude changing wrt NASA now , certainly
not under Bush. The
war criminal. Maybe if they were going a little leftwing, well, that would
be a different story.
Don't think there's any leftwingers working in NASA, though. Granted that
physics isn't
supposed to be democratic, but why is NASA so politically-skewed to the
right?

"This argument you have made is a complete red herring: you have proposed a
ridiculous idea out
of your own imagination, and then shot it down. For your argument to be
valid at all, you have to
be examining and criticizing arguments made by people who are looking at
space activities, not
your own fantasies."

If NASA could bring anything back of value (titanium, He-3, whatever), at
least I could say they
were trying (more or less futilely) to make a profit, even though it seems
to be pretty tough to compete with earth-based resources. I choose titanium
because I thought it was the most widely-available resource on the
moon which could be exploited for commercial value and used here back on
earth. I will agree
that your arguments seem to refute my original thesis. OTOH maybe we shouldn
't be so dependent
on Russia and Khazakastan for our titanium (especially when the F-22
fighter-jet is almost 40%
titanium)? What if Russia decides not to sell its titanium to us when Bush
decides to invade Syria or Iran?

"Actually, it's one of the few items in the national budget that
consistently generates more
economic growth than it consumes. That is only one of the many errors in
your post."

I'll believe your argument when the Titusville, Fla. causeway that connects
to KSC is lined with
silver or gold. Or, to put it in a different way, when the average homes
in Titusville are on par with nearby Orlando, FL. At least Orlando benefits
from tourism, there's only a trickle of tourism money going to KSC, I
mean, who wants to see a bunch of dud rockets, maybe you could get to see
some expensive
fireworks show once in a while, like Challenger, but hell, I thought the
view looked pretty good over here in
Orlando when I saw it blow up in the sky over there . I'm sure Endeavor is
a ticking time bomb,
wanna bet it's gonna blow up like the other 2? I don't need to go to KSC
to see it blow up in the sky.

But generally speaking, Titusville always has had a cheaper housing market.
NASA hasn't done a
damn thing to improve the quality of life there. Doesn't that tell you
something about the local
economy and the so-called KSC "economic growth" there, mainly that it is
somewhat depressed?
Where's the beef in that argument? I just don't see it.

Quantcast