Stephen Horgan wrote:

Interesting article; however, it does seem to assume that the US is the
only nation on the planet, or at least the only one interested in
space. Neither is true, and allowing that the argument that the current
costs of launch to LEO are a function of US government policy is
weakened somewhat. If there was another much simpler and cheaper way to
get mass to orbit then what is stopping everyone else?


To me the big problem seems to be he

"What would a truly dynamist space exploration culture look like?

Imagine, instead of launching a few government employees once every few
months, daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private
citizens by multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today
uses Boeings and Airbuses. Some conduct research at private orbital
laboratories, some head to orbital resorts, others board cruise liners
for trips around the Moon. There are hotels in high inclination orbits
for spectacular views of Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low
inclination for departure to points beyond Earth orbit. There are huge
radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected from the
incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the poles are
research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice hidden in the
craters there. The vast majority of the funding comes from private
expenditures made by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and
NASA has little involvement, other than to take advantage of the
dramatic reductions in cost and dramatic improvements in technology to
do those things that only it can do, such as expeditions to the outer
planets."

This assumes that if you cut the costs of space access way down,
suddenly a giant demand will arise for spaceflight that doesn't exist
today, and the high flight rates will lower the cost of each individual
flight. In short, it becomes a self perpetuating system.

Let's go through this point-by-point:

"daily trips into space by hundreds or thousands of private citizens by
multiple vehicle types, just as our airline industry today uses Boeings
and Airbuses."
The reason that we have so many people moving around via airliners is
that they want to go somewhere fairly quickly, be it a near or distant
location. In some cases, such as transoceanic destinations, getting
there by airliner is the only economically viable means of travel as
well as the only one that doesn't take days to accomplish. In short,
airline travel is a means to an end, not generally and end in itself.

"Some conduct research at private orbital laboratories, some head to
orbital resorts, others board cruise liners for trips around the Moon.
There are hotels in high inclination orbits for spectacular views of
Earth, and vehicle assembly hangars in low inclination for departure to
points beyond Earth orbit."
The "private orbital laboratories"- I assume are being used in some way
to generate profit for people earthside, such as the production of
exotic alloys or crystals, or perfectly spherical ball bearings.
Unfortunately, the only two things that one has in orbit that one
doesn't have on Earth are a very hard vacuum (and not even that at LEO)
and a microgravity environment. Having people on board these
laboratories means that people will move around, and that will screw up
the microgravity environment by imparting their movements to the
laboratory's structure. So these laboratories would probably be unmanned
most of the time while they perform automated functions with people only
showing up at the end of the process to pick up the finished results and
deliver new raw materials; and if that's the case you may want to
automate the the whole raw material delivery/finished product return
process also as it could save a lot of weight over the need to use
spacecraft with human accommodations on them.

The "orbital resorts" have the advantage of a great view of the Earth
and weightlessness. But weightlessness has generally resulted in
spacesickness among astronauts, so unless you want to make your stay
long enough to overcome a few days of nausea you might want to consider
staying on Earth's surface. As for the view of the Earth's surface from
orbit, it will by spectacular- as is the view out of an airliner's
window as you look down at the world passing below you. But after a few
flights you start noticing that you are watching the in-flight movie
more than what's out the window, as it's the final destination that's
the point of the flight, not what you see while going there. In this
respect, the orbital resort may actually be inferior to the aircraft-
at least on the aircraft you see different things on trips to different
locations, whereas the view of Earth's surface is going to get awfully
repetitive after a dozen orbits or so. Unless you are looking out of a
big window at the Earth you might as well be watching it on TV- and that
could be done from the Earth's surface with far less expense.
As for the cruise liner flights around the Moon, looking at the Moon
close-up is going to be infinitely more boring than looking at Earth as
it's color is monotone, and with no clouds or weather to cause changes
to its surface appearance it's going to be about as exciting as looking
at a large boulder. You want to see an interesting moon, take a cruise
around Io instead.
Unless you are planing a mighty long trip, your only other likely
destination on a "departure to points beyond Earth orbit" is going to
be the Moon. See above.

"There are huge radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, protected
from the incessant radio noise of our industrial planet, and at the
poles are research facilities and tourist spots, using the water ice
hidden in the craters there."
As we all know, Arecibo is one of the hottest tourist destinations on
the surface of the planet, and one must book reservations months in
advance to see "The Big Dish".
For a space entrepreneur, Rand has just found a way of spending money
building giant radio telescopes on the Moon that is going to have zero
potential of making a buck for investors in them. These things have
government pork barrel science project written all over them.
I note that that polar lunar ice is taken as a given here, although we
aren't by any means sure it exists, or that if it does exist it is in
quantities and concentrations to make it cheaper to use than bringing
water up from Earth.
As to what exactly the research facilities at the poles are researching,
I have no idea; maybe the effects of sensory deprivation and loneliness
on their occupants as they watch the lunar tourists jumping twenty feet
into the air..er...sky outside the base window and realize that those
lucky SOBs will soon be back on Earth where you can step outdoors in a
swimsuit without exploding.

"The vast majority of the funding comes from private expenditures made
by people seeking their own adventures off-planet, and NASA has little
involvement..."
Now this is a very telling statement. Note that it doesn't say: "The
vast majority of the funding comes from companies entering the lucrative
world of space investment" and that the main reason for doing this is
supposed to be adventures, not making a buck by entering a new frontier.
If I had a billion or two of spare cash burning a hole in my pocket,
would I be wiser to spend it on having an adventure, or investing it
into something that might make me yet more money? I note it's been a
while since Bill Gates has gone into the Amazonian rain forest on an
exotic butterfly collecting expedition, even though he could easily
afford to do it.
Even Steve Fosset's adventures in air travel are probably starting to
bore him, as well as the media and general public.
In short, this basically presupposes that space is supposed to be a
playground for the idle rich with nothing better to do with their money.
The extrapolation of the Russian ISS tourist flights into becoming the
future of spaceflight.
But remember, this is supposed to be done by "daily trips into space by
hundreds or thousands of private citizens by multiple vehicle types" so
apparently there are a hell of a lot more idle rich in the future than
nowadays, and the "Jet Set" has been replaced by the "Rocket Riche".
As for myself, if I ever became wealthy, I'd still enjoy the simple
things in life; the good bottle of wine, the fine aged cheddar, inviting
my friends on quail hunts and "accidentally" shooting them, and
occasionally being the power behind the throne of a weakling president.
Who needs space adventures when you can do stuff like that? But that's
just me.
Now about that evil NASA having little involvment...who the hell do you
think built those giant radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon?
Paul Allen as a way to try and score with Dr. Fiorella Terenzi?

"...other than to take advantage of the dramatic reductions in cost and
dramatic improvements in technology to do those things that only it can
do, such as expeditions to the outer planets."
Hell, Bill Gates could probably finance a manned Mars mission right now
if he felt like it. Steve Fosset and Paul Allen could lead the
expedition, and Burt Rutan could build a giant Martian glider for them
all to land with. Jeri Hall and Dr. Terenzi could have the first Martian
catfight, and Richard Branson could be the first gay man on Mars.
And I still think that we should move Io into Earth orbit so that space
tourists will have the equivalent of an exotic south seas island with a
active volcano on it to go to. :-)

Pat

..