Re: the un-economics of space travel

From: Nathan Gant (NGANT17_at_peoplepc.com)
Date: 02/04/05 

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:12:08 GMT

Eric, you're a smart guy, and I am reasonably confident that you don't have
$20M in loose-change in your pocket to go on a space joy-ride, and I hope
you don't waste your time working inside some pointless NASA beauracracy.
Even that N'Sync kid couldn't cough up that kind of dough, for all the
hoopla that it generated.

I suppose that one of the mistakes you're making, it's to associate the
exploration of space with the exploration of earth. Columbus used free
energy (old-fashioned wind technology and sail-power) to 'discover' the New
World ('discovery', as in a narrow-minded West European perspective, the
native peoples of Turtle Island never 'discovered' themselves, of course).
The point is that wind and sails cost Columbus nothing in terms of the
energy being harnessed, although it must be noted that the Spanish monarchy
financed the trip - built the ships, loaned him the money for the manpower
and provisions, ect.

Now in space, we're looking at a whole different ball game here. The
escape-velocity to get into space, or rather, the work required to move a
body from the surface of the earth to infinity is about 6.0 x 10^7 J/kg
which can be translated into about 25,000 mph. A standard physics equation
which I'm sure you already know.

Obviously, you don't build these kinds of ships out of wood, your
life-support systems are very exact and demanding, and even more to the
point, the government which finances your jaunt into this 'new world' must
have a reasonable expectation of a ROI (return on investment). If it
doesn't, it is quickly going bankrupt, because it's a million-times more
expensive, and you better make a million-times more money if you even want
to break even. Well, we could have at least tried to bring back a ton or
two of titanium dioxide for all our trouble on the moon. Just some random
samples of moon dust? The Russian/Soviet robot probes had already been
there and done that, if my Soviet space history is correct. But we could
have brough back some other precious metal, element, mineral or whatever.
When the creditors are getting impatient, you can try to hold them off with
something materialistic like that. Song and dance routines don't cut it, my
friend. It won't pay the rent.

Pres. Kennedy and his wise advisors no doubt went through some of this
rationale back in 1963, and his answer was an Apollo Programme which was a
cooperative mission with the rest of the world. A joint manned moon
mission with the Soviet Union, to be specific. His important point, in his
final address to the world at the United Nations building in Oct. 1963, it
was that no one nation should ever bear the exorbitant costs of space
exploration. Sadly, NASA didn't have the intelligence to comprehend his
vision back then, and it is doubtful if they ever will have the intelligence
today. Which is why I would discourage you from working with them.

But even worse, Kennedy's death has resulted in a much more inauspicious
situation for the world, because currently no one is able to seriously talk
about joint space missions anymore. Definitely not Bush, who wants to make
money on war instead of peace. Russia and China will conduct joint-military
manuevers soon. Because of the war-hawk in the White House. The world is
getting fed up with Bush's policies of terrorism and mindless destruction in
the world.

Not only that, going back to the issue, there is evidence that suggests that
NASA had more to immediately gain from his assassination in Dallas that
fateful year. It is very likely JFK would not have signed off on NASA's
appropriations budget in Dec. 1963, due to NASA's hard-headed and irrational
intransigency towards the joint lunar mission with the Soviets. All this is
documented in the history books, if you care to look at it. I posted one of
the appropriate links here in an earlier message.

"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ctusm6$29kc$2@news.ums.edu...
> Nathan Gant (NGANT17@peoplepc.com) wrote:
> : You can't go, Eric. As you don't have the money, i.e., you're not a
> : multi-millionaire, but even if you were, you probably are not going to
waste
> : $20M bucks for a tourist ride into outer space.
>
> So what? I can and do still participate in space. Space
> tourism may actually be akin to traveling around the world
> today. As expensive as that is, I can aford it. Haven't done
> it yet, but it is on my list.
>
> : Once the public realizes that they're getting ripped-off by NASA, all
this
> : crap about "prestige" and hi-tech advances and other BS, it will be
exposed
> : for what it is and we can put these worthless space scientists to do
real
> : work, like washing dishes and digging ditches for a living. On Earth,
of
> : course.
>
> No, space is an industry that has NASA as the largest but
> not the only customer. Other govt. agencies (i.e. NOAA,
> DOD) go into space. Other countries have space agencies.
> Corporations use comsats, and eventually a commecial market
> open to the public will exist.
>
> What do you think about war, the DOD and money? Not
> wasteful like you see NASA?
>
> Here, you get into the cleaning industry and I'll stick with
> space. Deal?
>
> Eric
>
> : "Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
> : news:ctu0eu$19gg$5@news.ums.edu...
> : > Nathan Gant (NGANT17@peoplepc.com) wrote:
> : > : there isn't much debate that the economics of space travel are
marginal
> : at
> : > : best. If the moon were awash in oil, bringing it to Earth would be
> : > : uneconomical -- the same goes for gold, diamonds and every other
natural
> : > : resource. Agriculture and manufacturing are even less viable in
space
> : (the
> : > : nonsense that was sold to a gullible public about crystals growing
at
> : the
> : > : International Space Station remains nonsense).
> : >
> : >
> : >
> : > We go to space because it is there. And since it will continue to be
there
> : > we will continue to go. It is really quite simple.
> : >
> : > Eric
>
>