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

"John Thingstad" <john.thingstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I think NASA and commercial vendors should be more cerative in finding
>ways to make
>space pay. Like mining the moon and then sending the material to factories
>in earth orbit.
>I don't think they think big enough to make it pay.

The question is not "thinking big," but "thinking long." Businesses,
economists, and people in everyday life routinely apply a discount to
future returns: an investment of $1000 that returns $1100 next year is
much more attractive than one that returns $1500 in ten years.

Nobody questions that there are vast and potentially valuable
resources in space. But other than the "resource of position" offered
by comm and remote-sensing satellites, the payback is so many years
off with present or near-term technology -- and at present or
near-term prices -- that nobody's lining up to invest in getting at
them.

That's why spacers have come up with so many other incentives: the
ecosphere will collapse... the planet-killer asteroid is coming...
military space is analogous to high ground... the Chinese will shame
us... space technology fosters R&D skills and spin-offs... 3He or
SPSats will provide abundant clean energy, etc., etc.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get into space because you
believe it's bound to happen sooner or later, and you'd really like to
see as much of that as possible while you're around.

There's nothing wrong with wanting it because you believe the idea of
an expanding frontier has great cultural and spiritual value.

There's nothing wrong with wanting it because you're curious about the
99.9999...% of the cosmos that isn't Earth.

But a lot of the "magic bullet" incentives above have the flavor of a
late-night TV sales pitch: "But wait -- that's not all! Call in the
next fifteen minutes, and you ALSO get..."



.