Commercial spaceflight & then what?

(Christopher) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:53:51 GMT, Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Ian Woollard wrote:
Or, unless we drain the Van Allen belts.

Even if we did, as they consist of charged particles wouldn't the sun
just fill them up again.

They tend to fill during solar flares; and drain down in the weeks or
months after that. You certainly would need to keep 'pumping'.

Christopher

In article ,
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:37:59 +1000, in a place far, far away,
(Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:07:07 +1000, in a place far, far away,
(Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

ISS is a lousy benchmark for an orbital propellant depot.

Then what would you use as your benchmark?

I would use the design of a system whose purpose was to be an orbital
propellant depot, designed by people whose interest was in building
that, rather than padding payrolls in Houston, Huntsville and Florida,
and providing appropriate kickbacks to certain people in the nation's
capital.

An interesting point of view.

So what you're saying is that when NASA designs a space station the
private companies whom NASA calls in to build it for them are not much
interested in designing or building one at all.

It's not the primary goal, no. They respond to their customer's
needs.

Which (I take it) is not to build a space station but to pad private
company payrolls. (It being, after all, NASA which pays the companies to
build the thing, rather than the other way round!)

Presumably were those same companies to go out and build their own
station--an orbital propellant depot, say--instead of "padding payrolls in
Houston, Huntsville and Florida" they would be siphoning off profits to
Chicago, LA, and Manhattan.

No, because they wouldn't be spending money on an orbital depot unless
they really wanted an orbital depot.

Are you drawing a distinction between what a company might want and what
their customers need (and are willing to pay for)?

That is to say, if their customers need an orbital depot but the company
does not, it is what the company wants which will carry the day.

Of course, those same companies
wouldn't be likely to do such a thing.

Whereas (I take it) you are saying they would if it was a government
program they were on.

(The kickbacks would presumably still be need
to keep "certain people in the nation's capital" onside and the subsides
flowing.

Why? That would only be true if it were a government program.

So private companies do not lobby Washington to get laws and regulations
they might want passed (or amended or blocked), tariffs & other government
aid given, or help to get some bit of paperwork speeded up (or problems
with ironed out), etc etc. That sort of thing only happens when they are
part of the government program

Is that what you're saying?

In that case the US must have a very large number of government programs,
all with private companies on the payroll, otherwise Washington would not
provide so much work for so many lobbyists. :-)

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:56:15 +1000, in a place far, far away,
(Stephen Souter) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So what you're saying is that when NASA designs a space station the
private companies whom NASA calls in to build it for them are not much
interested in designing or building one at all.

It's not the primary goal, no. They respond to their customer's
needs.

Which (I take it) is not to build a space station but to pad private
company payrolls. (It being, after all, NASA which pays the companies to
build the thing, rather than the other way round!)

No, it's to pad payrolls in the relevant congressional districts.
It's a government problem, not a private-enterprise problem.

Presumably were those same companies to go out and build their own
station--an orbital propellant depot, say--instead of "padding payrolls in
Houston, Huntsville and Florida" they would be siphoning off profits to
Chicago, LA, and Manhattan.

No, because they wouldn't be spending money on an orbital depot unless
they really wanted an orbital depot.

Are you drawing a distinction between what a company might want and what
their customers need (and are willing to pay for)?

That is to say, if their customers need an orbital depot but the company
does not, it is what the company wants which will carry the day.

No, not at all. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from
what I said. Of course, in your fantasy scenario, you never specified
who the customer was, or what they were trying to accomplish.

Of course, those same companies
wouldn't be likely to do such a thing.

Whereas (I take it) you are saying they would if it was a government
program they were on.

I've totally lost track of what point you were trying to make with
your original post (and I suspect that you have as well).

(The kickbacks would presumably still be need
to keep "certain people in the nation's capital" onside and the subsides
flowing.

Why? That would only be true if it were a government program.

So private companies do not lobby Washington to get laws and regulations
they might want passed (or amended or blocked), tariffs & other government
aid given, or help to get some bit of paperwork speeded up (or problems
with ironed out), etc etc. That sort of thing only happens when they are
part of the government program

Is that what you're saying?

No.

--
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: