Re: the un-economics of space travel

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

Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 22:26:54 GMT

my comments: "But even worse, Kennedy's death has resulted in a much more
inauspicious...The world is getting fed up with Bush's policies of terrorism
and mindless destruction in the world."

your comments: "Well, we did have Apollo-Soyuz and the ISS is a joint
mission. Is there still room for more cooperation? Yes...Sounds like you got
a hold of the Torbitt Document. Well, all I have to say to that is caveat
lector."

Apollo/Soyuz? Well, that's what I meant if you had bothered to look at the
link, maybe you're having a hard time with the facts here. Let's repeat.
Apollo/Soyuz was supposed to have happened 10 years previously, under JFK
and his cooperative moon mission with the Soviets(re: NSAM 271) and not
under Nixon. Apollo was never meant to be a space race under Kennedy. The
space race was pure psy-ops played upon the American people. There was
never a space race. I mean, how can you have a space race when you would
have Apollo/Soyuz? Or how can you talk about a war against the communists in
SE Asia at the same time you're planning on landing on the moon with Soviet
(communist) cosmonauts? That's what I addressed in my research. I repeat
it here FYI:

http://prouty.org/other.html
http://prouty.org/271.html

All that is part of the historical record, I brought this link up in the
previous messages already, and I don't see how you can dispute me on this.
Show me the documents to disprove my statements, show me where NSAM #271 was
countermanded by LBJ, for example. I really am not concerned about Torbitt
here, it's irrelevant to the economics issue here. Yes, the Torbitt doc has
been around the net for a few years, on paper it was first published
privately back in '69, I think. But my personal take on that related matter,
I can tell you that I wrote everything independent of what was written in
Torbitt because I didn't know about Torbitt at the time.

Okay, maybe you selectively read what you want, maybe some people can't
handle the truth. Again, see Pres. Kennedy's NSAM 271, this was a direct
presidential order given to NASA 10 days before he was shot, and NASA
disobeyed this direct order from its Commander-In-Chief and that is treason
in anyone's book, NSAM 271 was declassified about 25 years ago, and I using
that and also some material in NASA's own files (re: US and Soviet space
cooperation in the 1960's and 70's). My link, some of this is at
prouty.org, again I mentioned this link in an earlier post here. No one
wants to comment on this, there's not much they can argue with me on this
because it's all documented history. Very little speculation on my part.

Okay, now back to un-economics 101. Any business plan in 2005 for commercial
space ops, you're either looking at satellite launches or some form of space
tourism. That's it. There's no other way to even try and break even. Take a
look at space tourism, and how many people can currently afford it, or how
low the price per pound to orbit will have to drop before it becomes a truly
effective source of revenue. Wake up and smell the coffee. It isn't going
to happen anytime soon.

A private market in space is not going to happen without government support,
either by launching satellites for the government or other direct and
indirect subsidies. Space commercialization will be a failure because there
has never been a viable business plan and commercial model for operations.
No one is going to provide the financing for a pipe-dream. Venture capital
funds, investment banks, they want 200% ROI. That will never happen in space
and let's quit pretending about this.

Maybe we should be asking why space exploration costs Americans about $50 a
year, per capita, but the European average is about $15/yr. - see Time (euro
ed.), 1 Mar. 2004. And why they can afford public health care for its
citizens and we can't. Can you connect the dots yet?
Think economics!

"Government? ROI? NO! You see if you let THAT proliferate, then you have
socialism and eventually communsim in the form of a single corporation, the
Governement...Communism doesn't work...Are you a commie? No. Could a series
of bad moves through a few
generations make us communist? Yes, we have seen it happen."

Why comrade, I'm shocked! Haven't you ever seen Star Trek on TV or the
videos? Watching Star Trek all these years helped me to become the communist
I am today. FYI it's about a sci-fi universe where money and capitalism has
been done away with, we live under perfect utopian communism, it's the norm,
and a loathsome species called the Ferengi is used to represent capitalism.

It has been the genius of Gene Roddenberry, and his followers (writers) to
have shown us the future of technology and the social relations within the
STAR TREK series of great episodic adventures, that gives us an idea of the
Mode of Production of future humanist and communist societies.

I suppose those of us who are can think on that level, as modern-day
communists, that is what we have in mind, a kind of Star Trek-like society;
if some revolutionary advance in quantum physics makes it possible, if there
is a way to to provide for us going beyond Earth, then maybe it will become
something like a United Federation of Planets and Star Fleet, so well, I'm
sure this would be a communist social order with a massive production base,
and the slogan "from each according to ability -- to each according to need"
will be the obvious way to live.

Scientifically, I would say that only the working classes can create
humanity's future, albeit on earth or as a communist colony on the moon or
on Mars or wherever, and only working people are capable of creating such a
(Star Trek) future. And BTW an armed force of the masses might still need
to exist in the form pictured for us by Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek. But
this future form of armed force will be an entirely different matter than
the armed force in the very private pay of exploiting families like the
Rockerfellers and the Bushes. The armed force of the future that Bush & NASA
have in mind, well, let's just say they would have you assimilated into some
kind of orbiting military base run by the Borgs.

For a truly humanist society (as for example one might picture in the STAR
TREK series), maybe we could hope to see it by AD 2100. Undoubtably, I am
of the opinion that a "Star Trek" Stage will help to user in our final Stage
for Communism in the world here. The sooner the better.

Moral of my story: you'll never make it into space thinking like a
capitalist. Try to think cooperation instead of competition. It's all about
economics. After all is said and done, it's how you apply the economics
that really matters.

"Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cu0guj$vrp$1@news.ums.edu...
> Nathan Gant (NGANT17@peoplepc.com) wrote:
> : 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.
>
> You're only half right with the sentence above.
>
> : Even that N'Sync kid couldn't cough up that kind of dough, for all the
> : hoopla that it generated.
>
> I thought Radio Shack was going to spring for the publicity?
>
> : 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).
>
> Well, the two cultures hadn't met until that discovery, so the argument
> could be one of semantics.
>
> : 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.
>
> Yes, Columbus was a contractor and the Spanish monarchy, Queen Isabela and
> King Ferdinand, was the customer. An aside, what was their most famous
> event in history if not funding Columbus's voyage?
>
> : 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.
>
> Yes, I am aware of escape velocity.
>
>
> : 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).
>
> Government? ROI? NO! You see if you let THAT proliferate, then you have
> socialism and eventually communsim in the form of a single corporation,
> the Governement. They can simply declare competition illegal, and then the
> barrier to entry is eminent. Communism doesn't work and you can't take it
> for granted it will never take root without checking yourself, which you
> did not. Are you a commie? No. Could a series of bad moves through a few
> generations make us communist? Yes, we have seen it happen.
>
> ROI in monetary terms should NEVER be a government goal. This is the main
> reason that the Internet was turned over to the private sector (thanks, Al
> Gore) and not kept within the government from where it originated.
>
> ROI in terms of having an DARPA project become a new industry in the
> private sector is fine just as long as the government's role is not to
> make money.
>
>
> : 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.
>
> There is nothing up there worth bringing back from a mining standpoint
> that is profitable.
>
> : 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.
>
> Well, we did have Apollo-Soyuz and the ISS is a joint mission. Is there
> still room for more cooperation? Yes.
>
> : 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.
>
> I'm no Bush fan, nor am I for making the DOD a huge social program, as it
> appears to be for the GOP. But I do support NASA as it's roots were and
> are to be a non military agency for the peaceful exploration of space. The
> missions to Mars and Saturn are nothing less that spectacular IMO.
>
> : 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.
>
> Sounds like you got a hold of the Torbitt Document. Well, all I have to
> say to that is caveat lector.
>
> Eric
>
> : "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
> : >
> : >
>
>

Quantcast