Moral Equivalent Of A Space Program

My assessment of the two candidates on space policy:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/110104F.html

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
My assessment of the two candidates on space policy:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/110104F.html


"French-nuzzling"? Geez....and this is supposed to be an "unbiased"
critique?
Just by the use of such phrases, you've shown yourself to be non-objective,
and therefore one can see that you craft your "assessment" with a built-in
bias.
Absolutely ridiculous. Although I have no doubt that other Bush lovers (or
Kerry haters) will do all they can to defend your position.

On or about Thu, 04 Nov 2004 09:46:50 -0600, ruzicka made the sensational claim that:
"French-nuzzling"? Geez....and this is supposed to be an "unbiased"
critique?

Rand works for Fox, what do you expect, "fair and balanced"?
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

(P. Edward Murray) wrote in message om...

And at the moment, we can't really afford it.

Ed Murray

Depends on how its done. GW just proposed a massive reorganiztion of
the Social Security administration - privatizing that organization.
This will have a mssive positive impact on the financial services
sector as well as on the insurance companies and medical services
companies that will all benefit from such a privatization.
Efficiencies will likely be improved if competitive pressures can be
brought to bear between benefitting entitites. Also, government costs
associated with aging populations will be slashed dramatically.

This is a model of how to do space exploration post SpaceShipOne.

The stock market downturn when the bubble burst in 2000 vaporized 9
trillion dollars worth of capital. The economy slowed - and rebound.

We have a $40 trillion per year global economy. Of that, the US
accounts for nearly $10 trillion. The US financial services sector
basically runs the free world's capital base. In good times we grow
at 5% per year - that's $2 trillion in new income. In bad times we
grow at 2% per year - that's $800 billion in new income at present.

We have enough money. That's the point. How we spend the money
determines whether or not we can afford it.

Reagan was fond of pointing out that when the government runs health
care, we can't afford health care. When private industry runs health
care, health use expands appropriately to market demand. When the
government runs food production, people stand in lines. When private
industry runs food production, we have supermarkets with shelves
filled beyond capacity with all manner of foods - and food producers
competing on style, convenience, price, taste, you name it.

Clearly if you follow this logic, when the government runs space
exploration, we cannot afford it. When private industry runs space
exploration, we have an abundance of space exploring firms that offer
a wide variety of services appropriate to the market, that is
constantly being redefined and expanded by entrepreneurs.

So, what can the government do?

First, the government can turn NASA into a service organization that
serves the private sector. The first step is to allow limited access
to secret information, and where that information cannot be
distributed (calculation of warhead re-entry heat loads frex) provide
that service to qualified users without compromising security. The
next step is to establish research and development efforts in areas
defined by industry, and allow industry access to this research for a
fee (at cost). In this way, common issues get resolved. For example,
the development a commercial cryogenic rocket system, or the
development of a commercial nuclear rocket system. This is very
similar to the role of NACA (NASA's predecessor) in the early days of
flight. Third, NASA would review the security implications of
commecial developments. Again, mimicking NACA's role in helping the
development of the US Air Services, which became later the USAF.

In a world dominated by commercial space programs there is plenty NASA
can do to a) transfer knowledge, b) provide service, c) develop new
knowledge economically, d) review knowledge for its security
implications and use.

Second, the government can offer tax credits to investors in space
travel.

Third, the government can give a tax holiday to any space development.

Fourth, the government can allow the ownership of property in outer
space changing the nature of the outerspace treaty

Fifth, the government - having broached the outerspace treaty - can
develop a nuclear pulse rocket technology and make that available to
qualified commercial users, establish standards for its use, etc.

Sixth, the government can establish a means to buy and sell property,
establish claims, settle disputes, and so forth,

Seventh, when appropriate, the government can establish a marshall
service in interplanetary space to enforce orders of the court.

Eighth, when appropriate, the government will begin a rational level
of taxation on established enterprises to provide for greater
government services, if needed and desired by interplanetary
residents.

THIS CAN ALL BE DONE WITHIN OR BELOW THE CURRENT BUDGET OF NASA.

This will help our war on terror how? Because our war on terror IS A
WAR OF IDEAS!

What can the West do to inspire awe and excitement in teenage boys and
girls now growing up under the sway of muslim clerics? What can the
West do to cut right through the 11th century doctrines and place
something more exciting in the imaginations and hearts of those youth?

That's right, space exploration and commercial space development.

We abandon space exploration today at our own peril. We have every
reason to do space exploration right. We should start immediately.

Bill Mook

"Todd Bandrowsky" wrote in message
m...

Sure we can. We'll claim Mars and then sell a portion of it to retire
the federal debt. What's half of Mars worth, say, 10 trillion
dollars?

In the absence of any economic opportunities, the land on Mars isn't worth
10 cents.

Only a compelling economic opportunity on Mars will make the land worth
anything.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

In the absence of any economic opportunities, the land on Mars isn't worth
10 cents.

Only a compelling economic opportunity on Mars will make the land worth
anything.

Possession is opportunity. Imagine the world outcry if we Americans
put a man on mars and claimed it for the United States. Immediately
China and Europe would start building their own fleets of ships to
stake their own claims on mars.

"Todd Bandrowsky" wrote in message
m...
In the absence of any economic opportunities, the land on Mars isn't
worth
10 cents.

Only a compelling economic opportunity on Mars will make the land worth
anything.

Possession is opportunity.

Not all by itself.

Imagine the world outcry if we Americans
put a man on mars and claimed it for the United States. Immediately
China and Europe would start building their own fleets of ships to
stake their own claims on mars.

If they did, then they would be spending hundreds of billions for the sake
of national ego. They certainly wouldn't be spending it because
presently-identified market opportunities on Mars could result in profits in
their national coffers.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

(Todd Bandrowsky) :

In the absence of any economic opportunities, the land on Mars isn't
worth
10 cents.

Only a compelling economic opportunity on Mars will make the land worth
anything.

Possession is opportunity. Imagine the world outcry if we Americans
put a man on mars and claimed it for the United States. Immediately
China and Europe would start building their own fleets of ships to
stake their own claims on mars.

But if thier leaders have any brains they will first check out how much money
the US spent, and if it was a stupid 'race to Mars' program wait until there
are no Americans left on Mars before sending their slowly developed lower
cost mission to Mars. Again you are trying to push a space race that no-one
else is interested in PERIOD!

Earl Colby Pottinger

--
I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos,
SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to
the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp

"Todd Bandrowsky" wrote in message
m...
In the absence of any economic opportunities, the land on Mars isn't
worth
10 cents.

Only a compelling economic opportunity on Mars will make the land worth
anything.

Possession is opportunity. Imagine the world outcry if we Americans
put a man on mars and claimed it for the United States. Immediately
China and Europe would start building their own fleets of ships to
stake their own claims on mars.

Are you saying that insanity is infectious?
I don't think you'll find Europe doing anything of the sort. We'll more
likely develop a whole new range of pasta-shapes and sauces and totally
dominate the world of lifestyle enhancement and better-designed and more
efficient vehicles, homes and communication-systems which make air-travel
hardly necessary even for the businessman. We'll also develop more
sophisticated systems of democratic government.
Then when you tire of playing in the backyard we'll call you in for dinner,
take away that dangerous vote you were playing with, remind you to wash your
hands and send you to bed early.
Wouldn't you prefer Tuscany to a desert on Mars?
Given that we'll have moved beyond dependence on any single exhaustible
resource, what could exist on Mars that's important enough to tempt us away
from our present lifestyles?
Why not just tend our vines?

Keigwin.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:51:39 -0600, in a place far, far away,
(Todd Bandrowsky) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I think O'Keefe is doing a decent enough job. I like killing the OSP
and moving towards a CEV. That will make manned flight a lot cheaper
for the US, which is huge.

There's no reason to believe that CEV will reduce the cost of manned
spaceflight.