Great Untapped Financial Resources for Space Projects

"William Mook" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is a powerful reason to do whatever we can in space right now.
That reason is to engender a sense of open ended possibility in the
global community. This sense of wonder, especially if promoted by
the
United States, benefits primarily the United States. It helps in
our
war on terror by capturing the imagination of the youth worldwide
turning them away from the wonders of 11th century dogma. So, it
helps. Its worth doing now.

Looks like we agree on something -- at least sort of.


We're not talking about whether we should do space travel or not.
We
are talking about what would have to take place for commercial space
transport to develop and grow into a spaceship in every garage.

Every garage is a bit much for automated systems such as personal
rapid transit, volantors http://www.moller.com/skycar/, and
spaceships --
unless perhaps one lives in space.

The second step would be to allow private property ownership of
celestial bodies and of regions in space

It's already legal. I'd like to see neo-con artists try enforcing
laws tens of millions of miles away. How long do you think it would
be before we get a nice sized asteroid on a destination course to
Earth?

The third step would be to create a technology transfer and
development agency, like NACA of old, (this could be a role for NASA)
that would aid in the development of commercial space travel (just
like NACA helped commercial aviation) BUT I DON'T TRUST NEOCON
ARTISTS TO DO THIS!!!

The fourth step would be for Earth's expatriates to create their own
government(s) with its own court system that would settle disputes on
the space frontier.


The fifth step is for such an/some extra-terrestrial government(s) to
develop a taxation and grant system to fund R&D. Any patents granted
should get favorable tax treatment and be for the minimum most-limited
time period possible to spur R&D and serve the public interest.

Then, the stage would be set. You'd have reliable information,
knowledgeable support, funding of commonly used assets, like
spaceports, and a legal and tax basis for investment.

What would folks invest in?

Several other topics. I think this post is long enough.

"William Mook" wrote in message
oups.com...

No more terror acts.

As in the following?

Move to annex settlements overshadows Israeli cabinet's approval of
Gaza pullout
by Chris McGreal
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Sto...419005,00.html

Largest demolition in years: Israel destroys entire commercial market
in one day
http://electronicintifada.net/cgi-bi...iew.cgi/7/1851


Israeli Democracy Fact or Fiction? by WILLIAM A. COOK
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook01252003.html


There will come a day when people will not think it wise to sacrifice
their children in senseless bombing and killing. There will come a
time when people will look around and the whole world looks like
Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2,000 zeros and say, this is enough of
this. That day the war of terror will be over.

" When we're done with you, you'll be able to stand up and slaughter
your enemies like civilized men. "
Daniel Dravot - John Huston's The Man Who Would be King

William Mook ) wrote:
: Its their money dude, not yours, not ours. Its their responsibility to
: spend it in ways that increase their shareholder's value. If you could
: show them how to increase their shareholder's value by spending their
: shareholder's money, they'd *have* to do it - if it was the best way to
: increase that value.

: So, the challenge isn't theirs, its yours - to figure out how to make a
: buck on space investments.

: That ain't gonna happen because space travel technology is also the
: technology of missile proliferation - and we can't afford to have that
: technology as common as computers or automobiles or airplanes. Not
: until we get our house in order and end international rivalry. And
: that ain't gonna happen too soon.

: But, after a successful war on terror, after reducing nuclear weapons
: to zero, after creating a coalition of strong nations to disarm the
: weaker nations, and then reductions of the strong nation's military -
: if all that could happen - then, maybe, just maybe, we could allow
: private space development.

This is the loftiest ideal I have seen in a looooong time. What you are
saying is that until space becomes as profitable as war, then we won't
have commercial space travel. Sad but true.

: The first step would be to declassify things.
: The second step would be to allow private property ownership of
: celestial bodies and of regions in space
: The third step would be to create a technology transfer and development
: agency, like NACA of old, (this could be a role for NASA) that would
: aid in the development of commercial space travel (just like NACA
: helped commercial aviation)
: The fourth step would be to create a court system that would settle
: disputes on the space frontier.
: The fifth step would be to reduce or eliminate taxes on space based
: assets and resources.

Anarchy in space yet a world court FOR space? Ah, no I don't think that
that will work. Steps 4 and 5 are natural contradictions. Reduce maybe
but no eliminate.

: Then, the stage would be set. You'd have reliable information,
: knowledgeable support, funding of commonly used assets, like
: spaceports, and a legal and tax basis for investment.

: What would folks invest in?

: Delta class reusable unpiloted launchers.
: Advanced telecommunications satellite networks (ala Teledesic)

: Nova class reusable piloted launchers
: Advanced solar power satellite networks

: Orion class reusable piloted launchers
: Asteroid capture & Advanced factory satellite networks

: Manufacture of Farm satellites and forest satellites from captured
: asteroids

: Low cost ballistic transport using laser sustained detonation
: Low cost orbital access and Space homes

: Mobile space homes

: Interplanetary communications and navigation network
: Interstellar communications and navigation network

: Collision of films at 1/3 light speed to manufacture black hole dusts
: Creation of new technology based on charged/spinning miniature black
: holes interacting.

: Superluminal travel
: Time travel
: Time communication
: Superlogic

Time travel?!?!

Hey, I want my own crater on the moon! And before someone sends me to some
hoax website, a crater than I can visit!

Eric

War profitable? I don't think so.

All I'm saying that there must be a way for investors to make a buck on
space travel technology in order to be persuaded to invest in space
travel technology. The steps I've outlined are a natural consequence
of this requirement. Investors need to own space borne assets and use
them in ways that make money. They also need to have a way to vet
technical proposals. They need to be able to resolve common problems
together. They need a way to settle claims and disputes. They need
not to be taxed out of existence.

As far as time-travel goes, yes, its a far out proposition, but this is
one of the potential benefits of space based technology. The ability
to create large populations of miniature, charged, and spinning black
holes and allowing them to interact is an ability that space based
technology may one day provide us. Having these sorts of gravitic
dusts make all sorts of interesting things theoretically possible. One
of these may include time-travel;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

Live with it.

According to current law you cannot own a crater on the moon.

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

So, you cannot have your dream.

Now, if the law were changed to permit you and others to own things
like craters on the moon, then there would be an incentive for people
to spend money to make use of those things they could own. This was
the whole idea beyond land companies in North America

http://new.oplin.org/evolution/his/hisohco.html

If you let them own it, they will come!

So, these two ideas are related.

Zubrin correctly points this out in his book THE CASE FOR MARS. If you
could modify the OST to allow privately owned land companies to develop
a celestial body, or a portion of a celestial body, you would create a
situation where billions if not trillions of dollars could be raised
on the prospect of a payoff in the future.

Imagine that you and others could pay serious money for the rights to a
large chunk of property on the moon or mars say, to a development
company charterded by the UN or some other suitable governmental body.
You and your heirs would have rights to that chunk, which you could
sell off piecemeal as you developed it. This is what folks did in
England. Absentee landlords in Britain paid for rights in the New
World to chartered land companies. Those companies bought ships,
outfitted them, and developed that property and sold off rights to that
property to earn a profit for the landlords. Settlers who paid for the
rights settled the land and earned a profit from these efforts.

It didn't matter that it tooks months to cross the Atlantic. It didn't
matter that no European had set foot on the property. It didn't matter
that ships had a high chance of being lost altogether. This process
worked. And it would work today with our current spacefaring
technology, under the right economic and regulatory conditions.

Unfortunately, the misuse of space vehicles to carry WMDs around Earth
easily is the primary concern of regulators today. This has led to
efforts to avoid missile proliferation. This is an important third
party effect, so this concern is reasonable. So, this issue has to be
settled in some other more direct way in order for rocket technology to
come into wider commercial use.

If the UN could charter some development companies - to develop Mars or
the Moon say - I believe billions if not trillions of dollars could be
raised. In an environment where private investment in space technology
is welcomed, rather than viewed as a way to covertly obtain missile
based weapons, this money would be sufficient to create the
infrastructure needed to support the development of these planets. As
the planets were developed, the development companies, along with the
initial investors, would have the potential of a positive return. Of
course, as the planets are developed there would be those who would
settle the new worlds and create new wealth which would partly be
returned to investors and partly stay on the new worlds where they
build even more value. Over time life on Earth and these other worlds
would be enriched by the availability of resources on the frontier.

William Mook ) wrote:
: War profitable? I don't think so.

Are you sure about that? Someone has to bankroll a war. Are you telling me
that bankers don't get rich during war? Arms dealers? Oil companies? The
Militray-Industrial-Complex, of which Ike warned us about in his parting
speech as president, has contractors. They don't do well during a war?

I don't know about you but I wished I had bought various stocks from
MIC-based companies back in 2002 before the Iraqi invasion.

: All I'm saying that there must be a way for investors to make a buck on
: space travel technology in order to be persuaded to invest in space
: travel technology. The steps I've outlined are a natural consequence
: of this requirement. Investors need to own space borne assets and use
: them in ways that make money. They also need to have a way to vet
: technical proposals. They need to be able to resolve common problems
: together. They need a way to settle claims and disputes. They need
: not to be taxed out of existence.

I don't disagree with this.

: As far as time-travel goes, yes, its a far out proposition, but this is
: one of the potential benefits of space based technology. The ability
: to create large populations of miniature, charged, and spinning black
: holes and allowing them to interact is an ability that space based
: technology may one day provide us. Having these sorts of gravitic
: dusts make all sorts of interesting things theoretically possible. One
: of these may include time-travel;

: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

: Live with it.

Cause Sagan said it, it must be true? Heck I bet he's spinning in his
grave right now with the prospect that Voyager is getting its plug pulled.

: According to current law you cannot own a crater on the moon.

: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

: So, you cannot have your dream.

Laws can be changed.

: Now, if the law were changed to permit you and others to own things
: like craters on the moon, then there would be an incentive for people
: to spend money to make use of those things they could own. This was
: the whole idea beyond land companies in North America

: http://new.oplin.org/evolution/his/hisohco.html

: If you let them own it, they will come!

: So, these two ideas are related.

: Zubrin correctly points this out in his book THE CASE FOR MARS. If you
: could modify the OST to allow privately owned land companies to develop
: a celestial body, or a portion of a celestial body, you would create a
: situation where billions if not trillions of dollars could be raised
: on the prospect of a payoff in the future.

: Imagine that you and others could pay serious money for the rights to a
: large chunk of property on the moon or mars say, to a development
: company charterded by the UN or some other suitable governmental body.
: You and your heirs would have rights to that chunk, which you could
: sell off piecemeal as you developed it. This is what folks did in
: England. Absentee landlords in Britain paid for rights in the New
: World to chartered land companies. Those companies bought ships,
: outfitted them, and developed that property and sold off rights to that
: property to earn a profit for the landlords. Settlers who paid for the
: rights settled the land and earned a profit from these efforts.

This will undoubtedly happen when we colonize space.

: It didn't matter that it tooks months to cross the Atlantic. It didn't
: matter that no European had set foot on the property. It didn't matter
: that ships had a high chance of being lost altogether. This process
: worked. And it would work today with our current spacefaring
: technology, under the right economic and regulatory conditions.

I agree, but we are at least decades away from this scenario.

: Unfortunately, the misuse of space vehicles to carry WMDs around Earth
: easily is the primary concern of regulators today. This has led to
: efforts to avoid missile proliferation. This is an important third
: party effect, so this concern is reasonable. So, this issue has to be
: settled in some other more direct way in order for rocket technology to
: come into wider commercial use.

I agree, but this seems to be a topic (misuse of commercial spaceflight as
a means to create ICMBs) that gets avoided around here by the pro
commercial space people.

: If the UN could charter some development companies - to develop Mars or
: the Moon say - I believe billions if not trillions of dollars could be
: raised. In an environment where private investment in space technology
: is welcomed, rather than viewed as a way to covertly obtain missile
: based weapons, this money would be sufficient to create the
: infrastructure needed to support the development of these planets. As
: the planets were developed, the development companies, along with the
: initial investors, would have the potential of a positive return. Of
: course, as the planets are developed there would be those who would
: settle the new worlds and create new wealth which would partly be
: returned to investors and partly stay on the new worlds where they
: build even more value. Over time life on Earth and these other worlds
: would be enriched by the availability of resources on the frontier.

I'm reading Clarke's book "Imperial Earth" which is based in a solar
system very close to what you are speaking about. Complete with human
cloning, where the primary characters are based on Titan.

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
William Mook ) wrote:
: War profitable? I don't think so.

Are you sure about that?

Yes. Warfare destorys wealth. Preparing for war destroys wealth.

Someone has to bankroll a war.

Deficit spending pays for war. This destorys the value of the
underlying currency used, regardless of how that currency gets spent.

Are you telling me
that bankers don't get rich during war?

No. Because the value of the currency in which they're paid dwindles
away to nothing.

Arms dealers?

No. Defense spending is a very large part of total US spending yet it
is very rare that large defense contractors for the US government
perform as well as say a software company or a restaurant.

When inflation and interest rates and raw material prices spike upward
in the aftermath of actually using the instruments of war, these very
same defense contractors are the ones who suffer most - especially if
the government decides to cut back defense spending as it did after WW1

Oil companies?

The major oil companies buy oil from producing areas and ship that oil
to consuming areas and make money on the margin in doing this. Warfare
erases this margin by affecting the value of long-term contracts.
Consider that one of the major causes of the oil supply problems in the
1970s was the economic turmoil caused by the Vietnam war. Here the US
spent hundreds of billions of dollars to prosecute a war. This
resulted in a massive decline in the value of the US dollar in the
years following this war. Since all of the oil contracts which the
major oil companies signed with supplier nations were denominated in
dollars, this caused huge problems for those oil companies as the value
of the dollar declined. This ultimately resulted in supply
interruptions and a massive increase in the cost of oil, massive
increases in interest rates, with the result that the major oil
companies profits evaporated in that period.

It was only the long period of peace in the 1980s, combined with fiscal
conservatisim that major oil companies returned to profitability.

The
Militray-Industrial-Complex, of which Ike warned us about in his
parting
speech as president, has contractors. They don't do well during a
war?

No. Eisenhower warned us of spending too much on things that seemed to
make us strong because he knew that overspending on preparing for war
during times of peace would actually make us weak.

Foolish people may believe that massive government spending on warfare
is good for the economy. But the reality is if you have 20% of your
population making and tending weapons you've wasted 20% of your
capacity to do something useful. For example, that 20% of your
economic activity could go toward economic expansion by allowing the
money to flow back into market directed capital formation.

If you are so foolish as to actually use those weapons in war, things
become considerably worse.

Consider, if the US and USSR would have gone head to head in a nuclear
conflict the majority of people now alive in both countries would be
dead, the world would be a vast radioactive graveyard, and our ability
to produce and consume things would be dramatically reduced. This
would be reflected in the value of our currency and other economic
measures.

Even small well defined limited conflicts like those of Vietnam have
negative economic influence, as the oil difficulties of the 1970s show
us.

I don't know about you but I wished I had bought various stocks from
MIC-based companies back in 2002 before the Iraqi invasion.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/G...tSpending.html

Halliburton in Dec 28, 1981 closed at $14.22
Halliburton in Dec 21, 2001 closed at $13.10

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=my

There have been recent price rises, but long term I would suggest that
Halliburton benefits more from the gradually rising price of oil due to
its limited supply, than from warfare or government contracts, which
history shows is limited.


: All I'm saying that there must be a way for investors to make a
buck on
: space travel technology in order to be persuaded to invest in space
: travel technology. The steps I've outlined are a natural
consequence
: of this requirement. Investors need to own space borne assets and
use
: them in ways that make money. They also need to have a way to vet
: technical proposals. They need to be able to resolve common
problems
: together. They need a way to settle claims and disputes. They
need
: not to be taxed out of existence.

I don't disagree with this.

: As far as time-travel goes, yes, its a far out proposition, but
this is
: one of the potential benefits of space based technology. The
ability
: to create large populations of miniature, charged, and spinning
black
: holes and allowing them to interact is an ability that space based
: technology may one day provide us. Having these sorts of gravitic
: dusts make all sorts of interesting things theoretically possible.
One
: of these may include time-travel;

: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/time/sagan.html

: Live with it.

Cause Sagan said it, it must be true?

No, the thing is a scientist is speaking seriously about time travel.
Your comments suggested this might not be scientifically based.

Heck I bet he's spinning in his
grave right now with the prospect that Voyager is getting its plug
pulled.

I doubt he's doing anything in his grave except perhaps rotting.

: According to current law you cannot own a crater on the moon.

: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

: So, you cannot have your dream.

Laws can be changed.

Sure they can, which was one of my points - they would have to be
changed in order for private investors to place big bets on space based
assets, technology and resources.

: Now, if the law were changed to permit you and others to own things
: like craters on the moon, then there would be an incentive for
people
: to spend money to make use of those things they could own. This
was
: the whole idea beyond land companies in North America

: http://new.oplin.org/evolution/his/hisohco.html

: If you let them own it, they will come!

: So, these two ideas are related.

: Zubrin correctly points this out in his book THE CASE FOR MARS. If
you
: could modify the OST to allow privately owned land companies to
develop
: a celestial body, or a portion of a celestial body, you would
create a
: situation where billions if not trillions of dollars could be
raised
: on the prospect of a payoff in the future.

: Imagine that you and others could pay serious money for the rights
to a
: large chunk of property on the moon or mars say, to a development
: company charterded by the UN or some other suitable governmental
body.
: You and your heirs would have rights to that chunk, which you could
: sell off piecemeal as you developed it. This is what folks did in
: England. Absentee landlords in Britain paid for rights in the New
: World to chartered land companies. Those companies bought ships,
: outfitted them, and developed that property and sold off rights to
that
: property to earn a profit for the landlords. Settlers who paid for
the
: rights settled the land and earned a profit from these efforts.

This will undoubtedly happen when we colonize space.

You've got it backwards. When this happens we will colonize space.
The government doesn't need to spend more money on space travel. The
government needs to establish conditions so that business can spend
more money on space travel.

: It didn't matter that it tooks months to cross the Atlantic. It
didn't
: matter that no European had set foot on the property. It didn't
matter
: that ships had a high chance of being lost altogether. This
process
: worked. And it would work today with our current spacefaring
: technology, under the right economic and regulatory conditions.

I agree, but we are at least decades away from this scenario.

We could establish the conditions for space business tomorrow if we
wanted. We don't want, that's the point.

: Unfortunately, the misuse of space vehicles to carry WMDs around
Earth
: easily is the primary concern of regulators today. This has led to
: efforts to avoid missile proliferation. This is an important third
: party effect, so this concern is reasonable. So, this issue has to
be
: settled in some other more direct way in order for rocket
technology to
: come into wider commercial use.

I agree, but this seems to be a topic (misuse of commercial
spaceflight as
a means to create ICMBs) that gets avoided around here by the pro
commercial space people.

Its a topic that must be addressed if we expect laws and policies to
change.

: If the UN could charter some development companies - to develop
Mars or
: the Moon say - I believe billions if not trillions of dollars could
be
: raised. In an environment where private investment in space
technology
: is welcomed, rather than viewed as a way to covertly obtain missile
: based weapons, this money would be sufficient to create the
: infrastructure needed to support the development of these planets.
As
: the planets were developed, the development companies, along with
the
: initial investors, would have the potential of a positive return.
Of
: course, as the planets are developed there would be those who would
: settle the new worlds and create new wealth which would partly be
: returned to investors and partly stay on the new worlds where they
: build even more value. Over time life on Earth and these other
worlds
: would be enriched by the availability of resources on the frontier.

I'm reading Clarke's book "Imperial Earth" which is based in a solar
system very close to what you are speaking about. Complete with human
cloning, where the primary characters are based on Titan.

Eric

Science fiction is an interesting way to think about these things and
can be inspirational at tomes. Unfortunately, serious people don't
invest in science fiction, so we need to move beyond sci-fi if we
expect serious change.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

Someone has to bankroll a war.

Please let it be the likes of Steve Forbes, while the rest of us "eat
war" mp3 link: http://www.badreligion.com/download.php?id=1.


: According to current law you cannot own a crater on the moon.

: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm

My understanding is that this applies only to governments, in which
case it is a positive development..

: Imagine that you and others could pay serious money for the rights
to a
: large chunk of property on the moon or mars say, to a development
: company chartered by the UN or some other suitable governmental
body.

Imagine that you gain title by getting there first. For large bodies
(planets, moons, large asteroids) you can only claim a reasonable
portion. Use it within a reasonable time frame or lose it.
I tried to find a link to a web page I saw long ago concerning this
issue but gave up.

I am against any Earth government granting titles of nobility, which
is what you are suggesting. The terms "title" and "royalties" are so
named for a reason. See the link above to a post on
geo-libertarianism.

: You and your heirs would have rights to that chunk

Yikes, perpetual monopoly, another Enclosure Movement!! Or perhaps
more accurately, Tea Act.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups....prod igy.com
A.K.A.


I agree, but this seems to be a topic (misuse of commercial
spaceflight as
a means to create ICMBs) that gets avoided around here by the pro
commercial space people.

It makes more sense to leave people who think like Eric Chomko,
William Mook, Rand Simberg, and Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin behind.
Or is the only hope for Palestinians and even America's lower-middle
class white boys and poor blacks is 72 virgins in an after-life thanks
to AmeriKKKa's and Judea's policies?


: If the UN could charter some development companies

Must I repeat myself ? Standard objections to monopolies apply.

I'm reading Clarke's book "Imperial Earth" which is based in a solar
system very close to what you are speaking about.

Imperial Earth - n. a Milky Way Galaxy ruled by a noblemen elite on
Earth.

Joel wrote:

In all of the years since space exploration got underway in 1957, a huge
source of financing has been over looked & completely ignored - this is
the financial resources of huge corporations & multi national comglomerates.
Many of these companies (i.e.Microsoft) have billions of extra dollars that
they cannot even figure out how to invest.

Since 1957 the major aerospace companie were very happy to be subcontractors
for various NASA space projects, & have reaped billions of dollars in
profits doing so. But they have done nothing in the way of organizing space
projects themselves. Yes, they could use the argument that it would cost too
much, would not be profitable (at least for a long time), that it is the
governments job, or other excuses. I do not think these excuses hold up in
todays world.

If individuals would e-mail large corporations & encourage them to directly
finance space projects, I believe they would adapt to this new idea.

Why?

This isn't like appealing to your congresscritter whose position
depends on your votes. Why should these large corporations listen to
'individuals,' no matter what their numbers?

Now, show that there's a *market* in there, that would let them
eventually make *more* money on their investment, and you might have a
shot. But the quality of the idea has little to do with the number of
people presenting it....


Here is
a possible space project: A robotic moon base (using unmanned automated
flights) would cost about $2 - 4 billion to build & $1 billion a year to
operate. This could drastically accelerate scientific progress. The large
corps. could even write it off as basic research.


And when times get tough, that's often the first area of corporate
spending to get cut.


What is needed is for major corporations to form an alliance to pool their
vast financial resources & plan several large scale space projects. Even
those that do not have extra funds have huge abilities to raise funds (i.e.
GE has GE Capital Corp.) As I mentioned a persistant e-mail campaign could
go along way to making this become a reality. I would like to encourage
every one who reads this to start e-mailing large companies as I have been
doing.

MX


I'd be interested in seeing the replies....if any.

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

No incentive under the current scheme of things.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups....prod igy.com
A.K.A.



"Joel" wrote in message
news:Qo_Xd.6284$Fy.4721@okepread04...

In all of the years since space exploration got underway in 1957, a
huge
source of financing has been over looked & completely ignored -
this is
the financial resources of huge corporations & multi national
comglomerates.
Many of these companies (i.e.Microsoft) have billions of extra
dollars that
they cannot even figure out how to invest.