Future systems and technology that will be developed in the near future by private space corperations will make space mining practical. Not only for using those resources in space but bringing them back.
- Status
Re: Booban -- :roll: Like I said...
And yes, maybe resources should be first, maybe you're right. Its all too hard. Let's just lie down and sleep through the future.
And the folks I mentioned don't work for NASA except Dr Ed Weiler. But otherwise they are amazing sources or knowledge and pragmatic wisdom and can articulate the vision and reasons for space exploration better than I. Er... Perhaps that's why they don't work for NASA?
I didn't mention any articulate defenders from Europe, Russia or Japan. However, we don't need another list right now. But if you got a beef with NASA, go write to NASA. Tell them what they're doing wrong. I'm sure Charles Bolden will be a lot more open to constructive criticism than his predecessor.
And as for this discussion(s) not being relevant to missions or launches; I say we've all been talking about the missions yet to come. That is, if there end up being any more...
Over and out....
And yes, maybe resources should be first, maybe you're right. Its all too hard. Let's just lie down and sleep through the future.
And the folks I mentioned don't work for NASA except Dr Ed Weiler. But otherwise they are amazing sources or knowledge and pragmatic wisdom and can articulate the vision and reasons for space exploration better than I. Er... Perhaps that's why they don't work for NASA?
I didn't mention any articulate defenders from Europe, Russia or Japan. However, we don't need another list right now. But if you got a beef with NASA, go write to NASA. Tell them what they're doing wrong. I'm sure Charles Bolden will be a lot more open to constructive criticism than his predecessor.
And as for this discussion(s) not being relevant to missions or launches; I say we've all been talking about the missions yet to come. That is, if there end up being any more...
Over and out....
mattblack":2axg57dg said:
I didn't say its too hard, who say's they don't want to go into space because it is too hard? You are making things up and being argumentative. I want it to make sense. Put up a moon mine, a moon refinery, a moon solar plant, a moon drilling rig, whatever, but a moon base? What does moon base mean? It means igloo is what it means.
I expect what he means is something like the Scott base in antarctica.
I would be pretty happy with that
I would be pretty happy with that
kelvinzero":3a0vosmg said:I expect what he means is something like the Scott base in antarctica.
I would be pretty happy with that
Me too. The Moon is the 21st Century equivalent of Antarctica: its another continent -- only 3 days rocket ride away in the sky (make it sound easy, why don't I). Hundreds of people live and work in Anatarctica from many countries, doing a great deal of science. Once upon a time, we used to think "Why go to the South Pole; there's nothing there but ice and penguins?!" In the 21st Century we can't imagine not being there. Why ignore Antarctica and what it can teach us/give us? Why ignore the Moon?
**And if I seem a tad argumentative to some these last few posts: I have faith that what I'm saying is right. Otherwise, people will just roll over you, claiming that black is white, when actually it's grey. Or blue, depending on where you're standing. So why just give in for the sake of peace and quiet?
Look: This is a subject I know a lot about, compared to the 'man on the street'. I've followed space history and exploration for 40 years. But I would never claim to know everything: The more you learn, the more you find you still have to learn. Space is one of my lifelong loves -- far less than an obsession, but far more than a hobby. That's why I'm passionate about it, that's why I'm dismayed that this wonderful infrastructure and capability the U.S. has may shortly be going away for good. All because of some politicians and bad decisions by NASA.
You know, it does get a little frustrating when people pedantically agitate the same thing, over and over, saying they expect a different result while actually not wanting one.
But on some subjects, I'll go further -- I not only believe I'm right, I know it.
But enough, my children...
OK, booban and other such negatives, let us just kill off NASA and any chance of a manned space program for not only the US, but for all of mankind! After that, we can also eliminate any and all space science activities, after all they do not make profits either!
It probably (except for laying off a hundred thousand or so aerospace workers) would not have ANY affect upon even the US deficits, and certainly not anything on the budgets themselves. Heck, we might even be able to afford another months war effort in the Middle East! And people, war is at least 100 times as expensive and wasteful than ALL the space programs of humanity put together! Or were you not even intelligent enough to be aware of that?
But, just what does that mean for our descendants in the future?
Well, it well eventually mean several things, all of them very, very bad! Things that I can guarantee you our decendants will not be in any mood to thank us for!
For one thing our entire civilization is going to come crashing down about the heads of our progeny, as humanity is either going to use up the resources of this planet, or in the attempt to use up those resources so pollute the planet, that any form of life, let alone humanity is simply no longer going to be able to live on this space ship Earth!
Then all of the things that the negatives seem to think is so important will no longer matter a hill of beans anyway. And you know, perhaps humanity will deserve such a fate for even listening to people like you!
And all of this (while a certainty) is only going to be allowed to happen by fate, if we do not get hit by even a small asteroid in the meantime. Even a relatively tiny asteroid would kill humanity off as it did the dinosaurs. Except that the dinosaurs were far more successful as a species than we will have been. The dinosaurs were around for some hundred million years or more, and we have been here for less than a million!
Humanity really only has two choices, one is to become extinct as the dinosaurs did, and the other is to move off of this planet. There IS no other choice!
You know, I have heard it said by the more conservative negatives, that the most important thing is not to leave our future generations with the kinds of debts that going outwards into space might just leave them. Well, people, debts can either be paid, or even repudiated, but not being able to breath the air, now that might just be a real problem!!
Besides which, the entire cost of the space program (manned and unmanned) has already been paid for many times over with the advances in technology that even going into space has made humanity have to do!
Lets just cut off the satellite systems, and then see how well your Blackberries, and cell phones, and GPS systems do?
As for the US itself, perhaps you didn't know it, but the ONLY industrial section of the US that is still running in the black as far as the balance of payments with foreign exchange goes IS the aerospace industry! And NASA, is one of the biggest reasons that industry is so successful (just ask Airbus, and the other Europeans, they will tell you!)!
Besides which, if you do not support our space program, just what the Hell are you doing on a site with the name of space.com? :x :x :x
It probably (except for laying off a hundred thousand or so aerospace workers) would not have ANY affect upon even the US deficits, and certainly not anything on the budgets themselves. Heck, we might even be able to afford another months war effort in the Middle East! And people, war is at least 100 times as expensive and wasteful than ALL the space programs of humanity put together! Or were you not even intelligent enough to be aware of that?
But, just what does that mean for our descendants in the future?
Well, it well eventually mean several things, all of them very, very bad! Things that I can guarantee you our decendants will not be in any mood to thank us for!
For one thing our entire civilization is going to come crashing down about the heads of our progeny, as humanity is either going to use up the resources of this planet, or in the attempt to use up those resources so pollute the planet, that any form of life, let alone humanity is simply no longer going to be able to live on this space ship Earth!
Then all of the things that the negatives seem to think is so important will no longer matter a hill of beans anyway. And you know, perhaps humanity will deserve such a fate for even listening to people like you!
And all of this (while a certainty) is only going to be allowed to happen by fate, if we do not get hit by even a small asteroid in the meantime. Even a relatively tiny asteroid would kill humanity off as it did the dinosaurs. Except that the dinosaurs were far more successful as a species than we will have been. The dinosaurs were around for some hundred million years or more, and we have been here for less than a million!
Humanity really only has two choices, one is to become extinct as the dinosaurs did, and the other is to move off of this planet. There IS no other choice!
You know, I have heard it said by the more conservative negatives, that the most important thing is not to leave our future generations with the kinds of debts that going outwards into space might just leave them. Well, people, debts can either be paid, or even repudiated, but not being able to breath the air, now that might just be a real problem!!
Besides which, the entire cost of the space program (manned and unmanned) has already been paid for many times over with the advances in technology that even going into space has made humanity have to do!
Lets just cut off the satellite systems, and then see how well your Blackberries, and cell phones, and GPS systems do?
As for the US itself, perhaps you didn't know it, but the ONLY industrial section of the US that is still running in the black as far as the balance of payments with foreign exchange goes IS the aerospace industry! And NASA, is one of the biggest reasons that industry is so successful (just ask Airbus, and the other Europeans, they will tell you!)!
Besides which, if you do not support our space program, just what the Hell are you doing on a site with the name of space.com? :x :x :x
Frodo1008,
Awesome reply, absolutely the best thing I have read all day and you definitely nailed it!
I wonder how the U.S. public will take it when Chinese wave goodbye on its way out of Low Earth Orbit LEO, when we can’t even get to LEO without the Russian’s.
Obama should read what happened to Eisenhower when Russia launched Sputnik.
President Eisenhower tried to downplay the event and said Sputnik was one small ball in the air.
Well… the American public didn’t take it well then, and definitely won’t take it well now, especially if we just sit back and watch the world just pass us by.
Bush didn't do a whole lot for NASA either, so It doesn’t matter what political affiliation the President is, it’s what he does and/or is doing.
Obama made his conviction very clear early on, and that is to junk NASA, I truly hope he has reconsidered and response positively towards NASA and the Augustine Commission report!
John F. Kennedy took us to the Moon, and thank God for him or we would still be using typewriters and this conversation wouldn’t be happening
Oh, ya... wasn't he a democrat???
Awesome reply, absolutely the best thing I have read all day and you definitely nailed it!
I wonder how the U.S. public will take it when Chinese wave goodbye on its way out of Low Earth Orbit LEO, when we can’t even get to LEO without the Russian’s.
Obama should read what happened to Eisenhower when Russia launched Sputnik.
President Eisenhower tried to downplay the event and said Sputnik was one small ball in the air.
Well… the American public didn’t take it well then, and definitely won’t take it well now, especially if we just sit back and watch the world just pass us by.
Bush didn't do a whole lot for NASA either, so It doesn’t matter what political affiliation the President is, it’s what he does and/or is doing.
Obama made his conviction very clear early on, and that is to junk NASA, I truly hope he has reconsidered and response positively towards NASA and the Augustine Commission report!
John F. Kennedy took us to the Moon, and thank God for him or we would still be using typewriters and this conversation wouldn’t be happening
Oh, ya... wasn't he a democrat???
Yes, JFK was a Democrat but of a very different variety than what we see today. He believed in lowering taxes for everyone and understood the importance of national pride. Modern Democrats seem far more intent on raising taxes and making us all feel bad about being American.
The part that confuses me is that Obama is obviously a smart politician, but it's looking like he is probably not going to increase NASA's budget to make getting back to the moon and on to Mars a possibility.
NASA's budget is something like $18 billion. No small dollar amount, to be sure. But compared to the amounts of money blown on the "stimulus" plan (most of which won't be spent this year anyway), bailouts, etc., it's not an outrageous amount given the historical and cultural significance of our space program.
I'm surprised that of all the government programs out there, that on this subject Obama didn't renew the commitment to the Moon and Mars, and increase their funding so they can actually get there. It seems like a no brainer to me. Even fiscal conservatives appreciate the great discoveries and benefits the space program has brought us in the past, and how it is capable of creating technologies and discovering scientific breakthroughs that benefit the private sector.
Space is also broadly popular in a general sense, it's a captivating subject for Americans of all ages, it inspires kids to study math and science (which we sorely need), and provides a unifying sense of pride and accomplishment for Americans.
At a time when Obama could use some bipartisan good-will, the space program seems an easy place to get it, it could distract a bit from his health care quagmire and buy them time to reframe that debate, and improve his standing with the general population in the polls.
On the flip side, if he abandons our space program or leaves it on its in-between budget that is too small get to the moon and mars but big enough that they will continue launching people into orbit despite upcoming redundant orbital service from the private sector, he risks polarizing the scientific community, and wastes a chance to inspire Americans at a time when we could use some inspiring.
The part that confuses me is that Obama is obviously a smart politician, but it's looking like he is probably not going to increase NASA's budget to make getting back to the moon and on to Mars a possibility.
NASA's budget is something like $18 billion. No small dollar amount, to be sure. But compared to the amounts of money blown on the "stimulus" plan (most of which won't be spent this year anyway), bailouts, etc., it's not an outrageous amount given the historical and cultural significance of our space program.
I'm surprised that of all the government programs out there, that on this subject Obama didn't renew the commitment to the Moon and Mars, and increase their funding so they can actually get there. It seems like a no brainer to me. Even fiscal conservatives appreciate the great discoveries and benefits the space program has brought us in the past, and how it is capable of creating technologies and discovering scientific breakthroughs that benefit the private sector.
Space is also broadly popular in a general sense, it's a captivating subject for Americans of all ages, it inspires kids to study math and science (which we sorely need), and provides a unifying sense of pride and accomplishment for Americans.
At a time when Obama could use some bipartisan good-will, the space program seems an easy place to get it, it could distract a bit from his health care quagmire and buy them time to reframe that debate, and improve his standing with the general population in the polls.
On the flip side, if he abandons our space program or leaves it on its in-between budget that is too small get to the moon and mars but big enough that they will continue launching people into orbit despite upcoming redundant orbital service from the private sector, he risks polarizing the scientific community, and wastes a chance to inspire Americans at a time when we could use some inspiring.
I don't like frodo only giving 2 choices. We either go extinct or we leave the whole planet. Do you mean leave the planet completely? Thats not that great of an option. A better option would be to expand into space with Earth being our Homeworld. Large populations would still live here, but in harmony with the planet due to more advanced technology and a better Human mindset. All the heavy industry and damaging activites will take place out of earth orbit.
We can make space our farmland with bio domes and spheres leaving terran farmlands to go back to the wilderness. Space elevators are a necesity though. Either that or a really effective resource drop pods. Like something the size of a tanker built in Space the filled with stuff. After it lands the material from the tanker body could be recycled into construction materials.
We can make space our farmland with bio domes and spheres leaving terran farmlands to go back to the wilderness. Space elevators are a necesity though. Either that or a really effective resource drop pods. Like something the size of a tanker built in Space the filled with stuff. After it lands the material from the tanker body could be recycled into construction materials.
tanstaafl76,
I agree, John F. Kennedy was considerably more conservative than a typical Blue Dog Democrat today, but if you look back over the years I don’t think either political affiliation has championed manned space flight one way or the other.
I agree, John F. Kennedy was considerably more conservative than a typical Blue Dog Democrat today, but if you look back over the years I don’t think either political affiliation has championed manned space flight one way or the other.
Personally, I have never considered the Constellation program to be anymore than a sop to space enthusiasts, especially the Mars Direct camp, while continuing the welfare for the military-industrial complex. There were no specific goals for returning to the Moon, simply to use it as a 'steppingstone to Mars.' To my mind, the most vocal and well organized of all the space advocacy groups are the 'Mars and only Mars' people. Mars gets the most coverage in the media, Mars is the hot destination for advanced propulsion systems, and there seem to be lots of people who want to go to Mars RIGHT NOW!
That does not pose a problem, in my mind, as long as the government stays out of the program. We have no business whatsoever talking about going anywhere, even the Moon, when we have no advanced system for reaching Earth orbit and returning. The single most difficult aspect of space travel is getting into space, not the travel from one place to another. Going to the Moon, or Mars, or even Mercury is a piece of cake compared to getting into space, or returning from there.
If we talk about travel to other planets, we speak of velocity changes which are fairly small, compared to the velocity change involved in going to space or coming back from there. Space is only a hundred miles from where you are, but it is also 5 miles per second away. That 5 miles per second is still very difficult for us to achieve, and our methods to do so are generally primitive. We use huge amounts of energy to get to space, far more than is truly needed, because our technology is so undeveloped. In some respects, returning from space is even more difficult than getting there, because we have to use the atmosphere instead of rockets to slow ourselves down.
What the US government is currently spending on space exploration will be small change compared to what companies like DOW Chemical, General Electric, Westinghouse, Intel, and numerous other companies will spend on their research and development efforts off-planet. Those entities know that there are huge profits to be made in space, but only after we can get to and from space reliably, cheaply, and safely. Those entities also had a great deal to do with the US agreeing to build a space station, because the research that is performed on that station will pave the way for them.
To my mind, the entire Constellation program is a red herring, a knee-jerk reaction to calls for some direction in space exploration. It does practically nothing to actually prepare for traveling anywhere, while insuring that the military contractors who are involved will continue to receive funding which supplements their defense work. It was also a way to cover up the mis-management involved in the loss of the Columbia, by shifting attention away from the shuttle program so that the upper level managers responsible for the accident could be shielded from public view. By implying that the shuttle was faulty, and needed replacement, people would be less likely to discover that the failure of the insulating foam had happened before, and that management had ignored pleas to stop the launches until a fix could be found.
That does not pose a problem, in my mind, as long as the government stays out of the program. We have no business whatsoever talking about going anywhere, even the Moon, when we have no advanced system for reaching Earth orbit and returning. The single most difficult aspect of space travel is getting into space, not the travel from one place to another. Going to the Moon, or Mars, or even Mercury is a piece of cake compared to getting into space, or returning from there.
If we talk about travel to other planets, we speak of velocity changes which are fairly small, compared to the velocity change involved in going to space or coming back from there. Space is only a hundred miles from where you are, but it is also 5 miles per second away. That 5 miles per second is still very difficult for us to achieve, and our methods to do so are generally primitive. We use huge amounts of energy to get to space, far more than is truly needed, because our technology is so undeveloped. In some respects, returning from space is even more difficult than getting there, because we have to use the atmosphere instead of rockets to slow ourselves down.
What the US government is currently spending on space exploration will be small change compared to what companies like DOW Chemical, General Electric, Westinghouse, Intel, and numerous other companies will spend on their research and development efforts off-planet. Those entities know that there are huge profits to be made in space, but only after we can get to and from space reliably, cheaply, and safely. Those entities also had a great deal to do with the US agreeing to build a space station, because the research that is performed on that station will pave the way for them.
To my mind, the entire Constellation program is a red herring, a knee-jerk reaction to calls for some direction in space exploration. It does practically nothing to actually prepare for traveling anywhere, while insuring that the military contractors who are involved will continue to receive funding which supplements their defense work. It was also a way to cover up the mis-management involved in the loss of the Columbia, by shifting attention away from the shuttle program so that the upper level managers responsible for the accident could be shielded from public view. By implying that the shuttle was faulty, and needed replacement, people would be less likely to discover that the failure of the insulating foam had happened before, and that management had ignored pleas to stop the launches until a fix could be found.
ZenGalacticore,
From John F. Kennedy's speech to Congress, 1961/05/25:
" First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
Congress makes the laws and appropriates the money, the President sees to it that the laws are followed and that the money is spent properly. When Congress refuses to appropriate money for something that the President wants, that is when things get strange. Nixon pioneered raiding Social Security to pay for a police action that Congress refused to fund, and missiles were sold to Iran to raise money for people in Nicaragua trying to overthrow a legally elected government.
From John F. Kennedy's speech to Congress, 1961/05/25:
" First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."
Congress makes the laws and appropriates the money, the President sees to it that the laws are followed and that the money is spent properly. When Congress refuses to appropriate money for something that the President wants, that is when things get strange. Nixon pioneered raiding Social Security to pay for a police action that Congress refused to fund, and missiles were sold to Iran to raise money for people in Nicaragua trying to overthrow a legally elected government.
Wow, somebody here who is sensible.
I would only argue that the expense of getting into space seems very expensive now, but only because we are getting little return for it. As long as profit is higher than cost, it doesn't matter how expensive it is to get into space. The reverse is also true, it won't matter how 'cheap' it is to get into space, because as long as there is no profit, it will be deemed too expensive.
Profit solves all problems which is why I keep saying to focus all energy and limited money on finding a way to make a buck in space. If it has to be NASA that does it, so be it. The other companies are decades behind, still trying to get to LEO.
I would only argue that the expense of getting into space seems very expensive now, but only because we are getting little return for it. As long as profit is higher than cost, it doesn't matter how expensive it is to get into space. The reverse is also true, it won't matter how 'cheap' it is to get into space, because as long as there is no profit, it will be deemed too expensive.
Profit solves all problems which is why I keep saying to focus all energy and limited money on finding a way to make a buck in space. If it has to be NASA that does it, so be it. The other companies are decades behind, still trying to get to LEO.
Sorry, if I did not make myself clear enough SpaceXFanMobius57, I meant just what you are saying. We are indeed a very long way from being able to get even our excess human population off of this planet. Although such a goal in the long run is NOT an impossible one.
What we MUST do however, in the reasonable future is to get the thrust of our industrial civilization itelf off of the planet. We do this for two very good reasons.
One, is to make use of the almost totally unlimited resources of this solar system (and eventually move even beyond that, but that is absolutely long range planning at best, although nothing is impossible to us, if we make the true effort to do it). We need to do this well before our actual resources of this planet itself are in themselves so used up that we will not be able to do anything at all!
The second (and just as important a reason) is to get at least most of our human industrial pollution off of this space ship Earth, well before we so pollute it that we kill not only ourselves, but all other earthly life as well!
The importance of our environmental programs in the meantime is to give humanity enough time to be able to do those two things. But those programs in of themselves are only going to get us so much time, and if we do not get the thrust of our very civilization off of this planet in that time frame, we (and probably all other life as well) are simply doomed!
Sorry, if I was not as clear on that as I had hoped I would be!
What we MUST do however, in the reasonable future is to get the thrust of our industrial civilization itelf off of the planet. We do this for two very good reasons.
One, is to make use of the almost totally unlimited resources of this solar system (and eventually move even beyond that, but that is absolutely long range planning at best, although nothing is impossible to us, if we make the true effort to do it). We need to do this well before our actual resources of this planet itself are in themselves so used up that we will not be able to do anything at all!
The second (and just as important a reason) is to get at least most of our human industrial pollution off of this space ship Earth, well before we so pollute it that we kill not only ourselves, but all other earthly life as well!
The importance of our environmental programs in the meantime is to give humanity enough time to be able to do those two things. But those programs in of themselves are only going to get us so much time, and if we do not get the thrust of our very civilization off of this planet in that time frame, we (and probably all other life as well) are simply doomed!
Sorry, if I was not as clear on that as I had hoped I would be!
Booban, I know of no one that generally posts in the space subject area here on space.com that is generally not a very sensible poster. The non sensible ones are all over on the more political posts on such areas as free space!
Mattblack, Halman, you, myself, and just about everybody else here are the best this site has to offer (and yes, that includes some that also post on free space such as docm. occasionally even I am masochistic enough to post there).
While the profit motive is not by any means the only one for the space program, I do agree with you that it has not always been as directly pushed as it should be. No problem there.
But remember there are two different types of profits that we are talking about here. I would call them direct and indirect profits.
Indirect profits have been the most important for the space program up till now. They are profits that occur when the very advanced technologies of just getting into space with either human beings or robotics generate research that eventually results in products that give us more and more advanced products that in themselves make tremendous profits! If you were to look at the miniaturization that has taken place in such important areas as electronics, communications, optics, computers, and such in the last 40 years or so, you will find out that the greatest driver of progress and eventually products in those areas has been the space programs of not only the US, but of the rest of the world also.
And the amount of pure profits that have been so generated by those products have been far more than 10 times as much as has been spent on all the space programs of the world put together. After all, without such advanced technologies, we would not now be communicating with each other at all!!
Then there is the direct profit area. So far the only major area of that type of profit from the space programs of the world have been related to satellite profits. But those profits alone would have easily paid for ALL the space programs of the Earth, whether manned or not! Think about it for even just a moment, and you would see just what I mean.
Cell phones would not even exist without very advanced communications satellites. And GPS is now even used by large farms to monitor just how well they are even plowing their fields, to say nothing of just what to plant and where to plant it!
Now, what is needed is a similar type of direct profits for placing human beings into space.
Well, at this particular time the only one that seems capable of generating such profits would be the space tourism industry. And that IS going to happen also. It will start with Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites, and Virgin Galactic.
They already have enough people signed up (at I think some $20,000 each for a down payment, on a total cost of some $200,000 per each sub-orbital flight), to pay for enough flights for years to come after they actually start their sub-orbital flights. I certainly would expect that they are going to be making direct profits with these flights!
I fully believe that next step to be hypersonic (especially as the Air Force is pursuing this area with their own with far greater than NASA's funding) very high speed travel for both business people (to whom time IS money) ,and also high speed material travel around the Earth. Such travel, will make no one place on the Earth anymore than some two hours away from any other place! To say nothing of actually still going into sub-orbital flight while getting there!
Eventually, we will see such direct profit tourism flight even to LEO, but I think that will have to come at the same time with such as Robert Bigelow's inflatable space habitats, as you are going to need some kind of reasonable destination besides the then aging ISS to get relatively wealthy people to want to even risk going into space.
In fact, I personally think that such "Space Hotels" are going to have to offer some kind of reasonable accommodations for such relatively wealthy people, at least in the beginning. This would mean probably hotels in LEO that are spun to generate different levels of artificial gravity (such as the moon's at 0.16 g, and Mars at 0.38 g), as there are still plenty of people (even some astronauts) that get space sick at first in absolutely weightlessness!
But, it WILL happen, and it WILL generate profits, and the costs will continuously come down so that more and more people will be eventually vacationing in space itself!
Eventually, on to the moon, and beyond!
So I would not worry about space becoming profitable at all, after all, many people thought that Thomas Jefferson was crazy for purchasing so much useless land with the Louisiana Purchase, and they then thought the same about the purchase of Alaska also! Who is it that is laughing now?
It IS going to take some time (and in the meantime NASA can go ahead and take humanity even further out), but it will happen. Eventually, (especially with such transportation systems as space elevators) the industry of space itself will dwarf the value of all such industry that has ever been available on this planet itself!
In fact, at some point in the future, I might even expect the planet Earth itself to become the biggest tourist trap in the solar system! Although, we might have to keep the "tourists" from trampling the grass!! :lol: :lol:
Mattblack, Halman, you, myself, and just about everybody else here are the best this site has to offer (and yes, that includes some that also post on free space such as docm. occasionally even I am masochistic enough to post there).
While the profit motive is not by any means the only one for the space program, I do agree with you that it has not always been as directly pushed as it should be. No problem there.
But remember there are two different types of profits that we are talking about here. I would call them direct and indirect profits.
Indirect profits have been the most important for the space program up till now. They are profits that occur when the very advanced technologies of just getting into space with either human beings or robotics generate research that eventually results in products that give us more and more advanced products that in themselves make tremendous profits! If you were to look at the miniaturization that has taken place in such important areas as electronics, communications, optics, computers, and such in the last 40 years or so, you will find out that the greatest driver of progress and eventually products in those areas has been the space programs of not only the US, but of the rest of the world also.
And the amount of pure profits that have been so generated by those products have been far more than 10 times as much as has been spent on all the space programs of the world put together. After all, without such advanced technologies, we would not now be communicating with each other at all!!
Then there is the direct profit area. So far the only major area of that type of profit from the space programs of the world have been related to satellite profits. But those profits alone would have easily paid for ALL the space programs of the Earth, whether manned or not! Think about it for even just a moment, and you would see just what I mean.
Cell phones would not even exist without very advanced communications satellites. And GPS is now even used by large farms to monitor just how well they are even plowing their fields, to say nothing of just what to plant and where to plant it!
Now, what is needed is a similar type of direct profits for placing human beings into space.
Well, at this particular time the only one that seems capable of generating such profits would be the space tourism industry. And that IS going to happen also. It will start with Burt Rutan, Scaled Composites, and Virgin Galactic.
They already have enough people signed up (at I think some $20,000 each for a down payment, on a total cost of some $200,000 per each sub-orbital flight), to pay for enough flights for years to come after they actually start their sub-orbital flights. I certainly would expect that they are going to be making direct profits with these flights!
I fully believe that next step to be hypersonic (especially as the Air Force is pursuing this area with their own with far greater than NASA's funding) very high speed travel for both business people (to whom time IS money) ,and also high speed material travel around the Earth. Such travel, will make no one place on the Earth anymore than some two hours away from any other place! To say nothing of actually still going into sub-orbital flight while getting there!
Eventually, we will see such direct profit tourism flight even to LEO, but I think that will have to come at the same time with such as Robert Bigelow's inflatable space habitats, as you are going to need some kind of reasonable destination besides the then aging ISS to get relatively wealthy people to want to even risk going into space.
In fact, I personally think that such "Space Hotels" are going to have to offer some kind of reasonable accommodations for such relatively wealthy people, at least in the beginning. This would mean probably hotels in LEO that are spun to generate different levels of artificial gravity (such as the moon's at 0.16 g, and Mars at 0.38 g), as there are still plenty of people (even some astronauts) that get space sick at first in absolutely weightlessness!
But, it WILL happen, and it WILL generate profits, and the costs will continuously come down so that more and more people will be eventually vacationing in space itself!
Eventually, on to the moon, and beyond!
So I would not worry about space becoming profitable at all, after all, many people thought that Thomas Jefferson was crazy for purchasing so much useless land with the Louisiana Purchase, and they then thought the same about the purchase of Alaska also! Who is it that is laughing now?
It IS going to take some time (and in the meantime NASA can go ahead and take humanity even further out), but it will happen. Eventually, (especially with such transportation systems as space elevators) the industry of space itself will dwarf the value of all such industry that has ever been available on this planet itself!
In fact, at some point in the future, I might even expect the planet Earth itself to become the biggest tourist trap in the solar system! Although, we might have to keep the "tourists" from trampling the grass!! :lol: :lol:
Oh, by the way, thank you all for such excellent comments on my first post here. I must admit to not being used to such a positive response to something that I had to say!
Again, Thanks!
And Everybody do Have A Great Day!!!
Again, Thanks!
And Everybody do Have A Great Day!!!
Remember the future will probably be radically different that it is today. Just 40 years ago the personal computer was a laughable thing to talk about. Here we are talking on personal computers! Unless someone here is logged on to a computer the size of a room. :mrgreen:
Booban":2yc4wafe said:
I'm saying show me a better system. You gave NO examples of a nation with a better way.
How 'terrible' is it, Boo? You're "assuming" that it's worse than the 'other systems' that you give no example of.
It looks "nicer" here? That is, the fairest possible way of awarding government contracts to the bidder with the most efficient and effective design? Gee, perhaps because our system IS nicer, and more equitable than say: Russia, China, France, Iran, Turkey, etc. Can all those countries "trace" where all the money comes from?
The 'defense woman' incident that you speak of-I do not remember it- is just that, one deal, one incident. There's bound to be abuses in any society.
Is that the "tip of the iceberg"? Or just rare occurrences? Yes, 'things like that are happening every day', but not necessarily in the United States, or 'only' here.
Booban":2attqima said:
We have to start somewhere. And don't knock igloos. Igloos are built by people in some of the most hostile places on Earth. And if you think the Arctic is hostile, try hunting seals or fishing, or even breathing freely on the Moon.
halman":3i7qbrkr said:
I'm well aware that Congress controls the purse and makes the laws. I'm also aware that the President has the power of VETO. And the Supreme Court, through precedent craftily established by one John Marshall in c. 1803, but also because of Federalist Paper #78, has the authority and power to declare legislation passed by Congress as UN-CONSTITUTIONAL. (It was recognized, as far back as 1620 at least, that legislative assemblies will often overstep their authority.)
Part of the President's responsibilities are to ensure that the laws of the United States, as expressed in the Constitution(very flexible though it be, and was designed to be) which is the supreme law of the land, are carried out and enforced in good faith. Equally important and also set by precedent, is his primary function of not only leading the nation, but setting the theme and goals within and of that leadership.
The rest of your above post, from "When Congress refuses to..." is spot on! I couldn't agree more with the rest of your paragraph. Fear in the Cold War, and fear of communist expansion which fueled US involvement in Korea and the subsequent decisions that Truman made, laid the precedent for Vietnam and the idea of 'Executive War' that's been with us ever since.
And the "Iran-Contra" scandal, oh man that was REALLY smelly and stinky. Don't get me started on that! :x
[edit] Constitution, 'flexible'.
Booban":1fwl1vqa said:
Tell ya what Booban, how about you invest YOUR money into private space ventures. How's that sound?
Of course the American People, and by extension, NASA, have to pave the way for future private enterprise in space. After all, you can't have a finely paved road for commerce and travel until the TAXPAYERS pay for it! (Good luck getting private investors to initiate a road building project on their own without government backed loans and securities.)
And Boo, don't ever again tell me "what I think". (Regarding 'you just think they're legit because they have three-piece-suits on', or whatever.)
I'm guessing the sound you like to hear is that you are right, so you are right, whatever Zen, Have a nice day now.
MOD HAT ON***
Just so y'all know, I'm not going to tolerate much more of this name calling.
Stick to the subject!
MOD HAT OFF***
Just so y'all know, I'm not going to tolerate much more of this name calling.
Stick to the subject!
MOD HAT OFF***
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 190
-
-
Mars opposition 2025: How to see the Red Planet at its biggest and brightest
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
How 2024 brought us deeper into the world of particles
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
Question How Could Einstein Come Up With Quantum Entanglement
- Started by Space Hunter
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram