Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 16:54:16 GMT, simberg.interglobal@xxxxxxxxx (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

>On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:40:47 -0400, in a place far, far away, Josh
>Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>>>>Oh come now, Josh: there's the alternative of no program
>>>>>at all. Not spending money on idiocy is a *good* thing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is that. But I prefer to think positively . . .
>>>
>>>It's called 'denial', and it's not really something you
>>>should prefer.
>>
>>It's a matter of priorities. I'd rather the government wasted money on
>>suboptimal space programs than on $250 million bridges to uninhabited
>>islands in Alaska.
>
>Even when those suboptimal space programs perpetuate myths about the
>high cost and difficulty of space that makes it more difficult to find
>investment for it that might reduce the costs?

Seriously, who would make that investment? Slow payback and high risk.
Small market. A fair amount of competition. Startups going out of
business. Aerospace behemoths that, if you're actually successful,
will copy what you've done or take a loss to put you out of business.
A low dollar and subsidized launches by other countries. Government
purchases that are made on the basis of pork and politics rather than
price and performance. I can't imagine anyone financing a venture like
this for anything but love . . .

--
Josh

"It was amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity
and incumbency." - George W. Bush
.