Past Perfect, Future Misleading

Rand Simberg wrote:
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


Also near the end of this essay is this:


"Let's start a new space age based on the American values of competition
and individualism, rather than European (or even Soviet) ones of
monopoly and bureaucracy."

It seems to me there's free market capitalism flourishing in the
European Economic Union, as well as along the Pacific Rim. I think there
may be other entities besides the U.S. that could benefit from private
space industry.

There are some multi-national corporations that strengthen the economy
of several nations. For example CFM International is both U.S. and
French. Would they be able to compete for both U.S. incentives and
European prizes?

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

Hop David wrote:


Rand Simberg wrote:

I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


At the end of this essay Rand writes:

"We want, and need, a space transport industry, and it will never occur
as long as NASA remains in charge of developing manned launch systems.


I've seen vague speculation on a space tourism industry. But is this the
killer app that will capture public imagination? It's hard to image Joe
Taxpayer writing his congressmen to give incentives to Carmack, Boeing
or whoever to establish LEO resorts.



Find a solid gold asteroid...then you'll have the killer app. Space
transportation would leap a century into the future.

But, unless China makes plans to plant a flag on Mars, there's not much
out there other than the public imagination to give manned spaceflight a
purpose. And that's mainly driven by romantic musings of the Apollo
program.

In article , stmx3 wrote:

Find a solid gold asteroid...then you'll have the killer app. Space
transportation would leap a century into the future.

Or not. The problem with relying on "valuable minerals" is that the
market can glut; the world produces some 2500 tonnes of gold a year. A
10m diameter gold asteroid would have about four years worth of that
production; it scales up from there. IANAEconomist (I mean, I can do
sums g), but you get the idea... that'd do really weird things to the
market.

The oceans contain some $1.5 *quadrillion* worth of gold (or so my
slighlty hyperbolic-looking source says; this number seems inherently
WAG); about ten million tonnes, or four thousand years of production.
I'm not drawing an explict analogy, just making a point; "valuable"
resources are really only valuable should it be possible to make a
profit on them. No-one's made a profit evaporating seawater to get it...

If there's an economic reason, it won't (I suspect) be precious metal in
the Belt, or the discovery of diamonds on Enceladus, or the like...

--
-Andrew Gray

stmx3 wrote:
Hop David wrote:



Rand Simberg wrote:

I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


At the end of this essay Rand writes:

"We want, and need, a space transport industry, and it will never
occur as long as NASA remains in charge of developing manned launch
systems.



I've seen vague speculation on a space tourism industry. But is this
the killer app that will capture public imagination? It's hard to
image Joe Taxpayer writing his congressmen to give incentives to
Carmack, Boeing or whoever to establish LEO resorts.



Find a solid gold asteroid...then you'll have the killer app. Space
transportation would leap a century into the future.

I understand there are asteroids rich in metals, metals not bound up in
oxygen, sulfur etc. like the ores we can get at at the top of earth's crust.

Wouldn't delta V expense make even a solid gold asteroid unprofitable?


Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:50:07 +0000, stmx3 wrote:

Hop David wrote:

Find a solid gold asteroid...then you'll have the killer app. Space
transportation would leap a century into the future.

By the time you get to it you'll haveve spent a good portion of it.

By the time you haul back a few thousand tons to Earth and safely
land it you'll have spent most of the rest of it.

By the time you get paid for the gold you brought back word of the
gold's arrival will have flattened the gold market... and you'll be
broke.

Industrial materials in space will stay in space to be used in
space by folks who work in space.

And that's what a gold asteroid would become... gold foil, gold
conductors etc.

The only exception would be materials that are _only_ produced or
procured offworld... that are wanted on Earth.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


While I agree in theory with much of what you are saying IMO the market is
not yet developed to that point especially considering the poor orbit the
station is in.

Better to concentrate on replacing the shuttles lift capacity in an open
market.
For each of the three people the shuttles leave at the station it is also
leaving about 4 tons of thrust, equipment and supplies.
That according to some estimates is 50 tons a year add to that launching
NASA's space plane and you have a market for 10-70 flights a year on
commercial launchers depending on size.

We do not need any new technology just what we have used more efficiently
and often.

On 28 Aug 2003 22:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


While I agree in theory with much of what you are saying IMO the market is
not yet developed to that point especially considering the poor orbit the
station is in.

I'm not sure what relevance the space station's orbit has.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


Past Perfect, Future Misleading


NASA plans to make continuing investments in “next generation
launch technology,” with the hope that those investments will
enable a decision by the end of this decade on what that next
generation launch vehicle should be. This is a worthy goal, and should
be pursued.


My concern is that .... you ... and many others seem to want to live
in the 19th century.
The World has changed, there should be no Orbital Space Plane, there
should be the 'International Orbital Space Plane', ....

As somebody said:

"The United States is the only country , on the face of the earth, to
go from Frontier to Decadence, without going through Enlightenment ."

So it goes.

On 29 Aug 2003 00:45:13 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Al Jackson) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


Past Perfect, Future Misleading


NASA plans to make continuing investments in “next generation
launch technology,” with the hope that those investments will
enable a decision by the end of this decade on what that next
generation launch vehicle should be. This is a worthy goal, and should
be pursued.


My concern is that .... you ... and many others seem to want to live
in the 19th century.

??

No, sorry, we didn't have the technology in the 19th century to do
space.

The World has changed, there should be no Orbital Space Plane, there
should be the 'International Orbital Space Plane', ....

Yes, right. Not bad enough to have a single launch system for the
nation--let's have one for the world!

As somebody said:

"The United States is the only country , on the face of the earth, to
go from Frontier to Decadence, without going through Enlightenment ."

Yes, somebody who was an ignorant idiot.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Rand Simberg wrote:
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html

In this case need for such a railroad became obvious after gold was
found in California. I guess you could call the California Gold Rush the
"The Killer App" that made the transcontinental railroad float.

I've seen vague speculation on a space tourism industry. But is this the
killer app that will capture public imagination? It's hard to image Joe
Taxpayer writing his congressmen to give incentives to Carmack, Boeing
or whoever to establish LEO resorts.

The concept of finding a "Killer App" in any public forum is flawed.
If some concept is flawed, then it is not a KA. If some concept is
obviously profitable beyond your wildest dreams, then it is still
flawed in that too many entrants to a field can kill the individual
profit margins. If it is obvious to a thousand entrants, 90+%
of them will not turn a profit in any field with realistic limits.
How many ways can you divide a $50B space tourism industry
before it becomes non profitable? What happens to the 25th
entrant to the field with no orriginal ideas?

I once read that most of the fortunes in California were made by the
people that serviced the miners rather than the miners themselves.
Most of them stayed broke. This is hearsay evidence.

The high profit KAs will be closely held industry
secrets until such time as they are applied. The major
profits can be fairly predicted as being made in the niches
by companies in fields that most people cannot see the
potential of. I have 3 friends localy that have each become
millionaires in the last 10 years. Each of them exploited
a niche in an apparently saturated market that was
invisable to most people, including myself.

It is my opinion that vast fortunes will be made in the space business
arena. They will be made by people that run hard business plans
based on proprietary experience. They will not be made by people
on the outside looking for a perfect "Killer App" before risking
a dime.

This is not a personal shot at you or your post. It is a comment
on a widespread meme that I consider flawed.

I find the idea of incentives to private industry interesting. But would
like to know more about what goals such incentives would accomplish.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html