"Kaido Kert" wrote in message
...

But selling a better future for people or their children,

NASA's been flying the Spinoffs flag for decades. People stopped
believing
them years ago.
I didnt mean spinoffs. I meant as direct benefit from what is being done
in
space.

that's an even dicier argument than the spinoffs thing...

either through
potential for clean energy sources from space ( SPS) ,

Bull****. utter bilge. SPS as a ground-based power supply is a massive
boondoggle.
Even if it will turn out to be "utter bilge" ( which i dont think it
will),
its worth a try. ( I never said a word about launching all the stuff from
earth, for SPS )

but that kind of handwaving is what SPS proponents always have to fall back
on. Sure, SPS is economical if you're slinging the materials up from the
moon instead of Earth (that is, if you don't have to pay anything to get to
the lunar materials, which turns out not to be the case). Basically all
you're saying with that argument is that SPS is totally unaffordable given
any remotely feasible technological base. We won't have large-scale mining
and assembly operations on the moon anytime in the next 50 years, if that.

You completely, entirely, with absolute certainty missed the entire point
of
my post.

No, I read you perfectly. I'm explaining to you why chasing this particular
dream is orders of magnitude too expensive to undertake.

I wasnt pitching another pet project, i wasnt pitching an solution
or destination. I dont care about endless circular arguments whether space
solar power, space tourism, space resources, or mars colonization could
technically be made to work. Any of those things might work, and it might
not. At least it doesnt mean we definitely should not try.

"Doesn't work" is one thing. "Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted for
nothing", unfortunately, is quite another.

I was merely trying to find a .. fundamental drive for a space effort,
that
lots of people could get behind. An overarching goal.

what about the profit motive?

Like some said, for shuttle it was "cheaper space flight".

that was just the rationalization for Joe Taxpayer. The real motive for the
shuttle was just so NASA could keep its funding while not really
accomplishing anything to make other federal agencies look bad.

Now economic, and to somewhat lesser extent, ecologic benefits are
something
that Joe could understand. So if you sell him the idea of thriving space
thrill ride industry after a decade is out, he actually might get
interested. If you sell the idea of clean power from space for his
children,
he might get interested.

until you tell him that said power will cost him anywhere from 40-60% more
than what he's paying right now...

economic or ecologic benefit ( of course forgetting current remote sensing
and communications satellites ), or we cant have that before we have those
other things ( cheap access, moonbases, whatever ). Well i just think
selling a simple destination as a reason itself for having a space effort,
will not work anymore.

You need to have a clear, believable reason for going there. And it has to
have a direct, traceable benefit for Joe or his children. Otherwise, you
wont get much support.

exactly

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster