Re: the un-economics of space travel

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 02/07/05 

Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 20:17:54 +0000 (UTC)

Nathan Gant (NGANT17@peoplepc.com) wrote:
: 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

I am aware of JFK's unpopular attempt at ammending the Cold War with a
joint space mission with the Russians. Not only didn't the mission happen,
the powers-at-be were in no way wanting to end the Cold War under JFK and
on his terms. After we was killed, it was busines as usual in the US (i.e.
us against them - Cold War - "space race").

Further, Apollo-Soyuz did happen under Nixon and the Cold War ended under
Reagan. JFK won in the long run despite who happened to be sitting in the
White House when his own dreams were realized posthumously.

: 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.

The issue is whether NASA was distating policy or following directions
from the adminstration.

: 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.

You make it sound as if NASA became a rogue agency, similar to the CIA
under JFK, ignoring his direction and implementing their own agenda. What
evidence do you have that NASA, and that would be James Webb as
administrator, did something radical nine days before JFK's death in a
show of defiance? I am aware of how NSAM 263 (JFK's Vietnam plan) and
NSAM 273 (LBJ's rewritten Vietnam plan) differed. And I don't doubt that
NSAM 271 was probably overturned in a similar manner after JFK was killed.
But are you claiming that NASA had some sort of hand in the assassination
because JFK instructed them to look into doing a joint US-Soviet mission
in space?

You mention 'speculation' but neglect to mention 'interpretation'.

: 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.

Right, so if we want to continue to explore space we will have to do so
with public funds. I have no problem with that. In fact, I'd like for the
public funds to be used in such a way to actually pave the way for private
use of space for profit in some undiscovered way. Much like the way the
Internet was started and evolved.

: 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.

The operative term here is "yet".

: 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.

I disagree. You are operating as if 2005 is the same world as 2025 or
2125. And just because something won't be realized in your lifetime
doesn't make working toward it any less of a goal.

Could you imagine what Jules Verne or Giovanni Schiaparelli would say
about the MERs on Mars? If you take our world as far removed from theirs,
then the next step will surely have commercial space industry.

: 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!

Their public health isn't that great, as their taxes are much higher than
ours as well. If you have a decent job in the US then you have heatlh
insurance.

: "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.

So, Sci-Fi has made you a communist? Huh...

Actually the Ferengi are more or less facist, fighting and stealing
resources of the conquered. Obviously energy in a Star Trek future is
cheap, and that is a start, but nothing releated to earth economics really
shows up. I mean we can't surmise that the starship Enterprise, obviously,
something akin to our military and NASA combined is representitive of
planet Earth economically. The best we can guess is that the federation is
like the UN and we have star fleet which is something like a global
military, and war doesn't exist, but is it all really communism or do we
simply not have problems with getting food and energy?

: 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.

Or, we have seen a manner in which technology provides us with all the
creature comforts that we used to pay for. The Sci-Fi notion of 'credits'
does exist on some level. Perhaps that is needed in cases where food and
energy are not in abundance?

: 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.

The problem then becomes what is the motivation for society? I mean it all
looks good on TV or a silver screen complete with teleportation, but the
operative word that you are forgetting is "fiction".

: 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.

But Borgs are the ones that remind me of communism at its ultimate level.
I want to have what I want and not what I am told I am to have complete
with being told "resistance is futile".

: 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.

I simply don't believe that communism will work. People are not motivated
enough to make it work and to force it to work you would have to create a
"Brave New World" scenario of Aldous Huxley.

: 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.

I believe that there is no capitalistic aspect to space right now. Just
like at the time of Columbus, his adventure made no sense. Being a
fisherman off the coast of Portugal did make sense however. Which one was
going to create a whole new world and which one was going to feed a few
people for a few days?

Eric

: "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
: > : >
: > : >
: >
: >

Relevant Pages

  • No worthless, awkward, greenie, P.C. solar panels to power this craft
    ... moon Titan is about to be submitted to Nasa. ... It would be the first exploration of a planetary sea beyond Earth. ... The Cassini mission currently in orbit around Saturn has confirmed the ... but we'd love to know the overall shape of the lake basins. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • NASA Selects Scientists and Investigations for Robotic Moon Mission (LRO)
    ... NASA SELECTS SCIENTISTS AND INVESTIGATIONS FOR ROBOTIC MOON MISSION ... administrator, NASA's Science Mission Directorate, Washington. ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... >on the moon. ... Such a mission could probably be done with two launches. ... Not having Saturn V's has cost us a /lot/ of money and missed ... >> What does seem strange to me is that they've chosen to launch the crew ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now
    ... There is no reason for humans themselves to go beyond the ... As a result, I´m an advocate of going back to the Moon, ... mission to Mars doesn't make sense, then there is no reason for the moon ... If we can establish a manufacturing capability in space Earth will be ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Internet Scammers Keep Working in Nigeria
    ... Nigeria's president thinks he's JFK. ... >> Nigerians plan Mars Mission in 2025. ... The Mission to the Sun will be done by the North Koreans. ...
    (alt.marketing.online.ebay)