Moon key to space future?

The World's problems are one of the motivations for travelling in space in
the
first place, that is to get away from them.
While this is true, let's not forget that plain old space tourism will fuel
the civilian conquest of space. There would be a steady stream of Lunar
tourists today if Nixon, that ~bleep!, had allowed nasa to follow up the Apollo
program. (which included a manned Lunar station!)
There are good philospophical reasons for space travel but tourism could pay
the bills, *now*
The moon IS key to the space future because it's such a visible and nearby
destination and it would give it's tourists life-long bragging rights.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

Allen Meece wrote:

There would be a steady stream of Lunar
tourists today if Nixon, that ~bleep!, had allowed nasa to follow up the Apollo
program. (which included a manned Lunar station!)

This is extremely dubious. The cost of reaching the moon with Apollo technology
was astronomical, and would most likely have remained too high for
any significant tourist activity. An alternate world nice-guy Nixon would not
have changed the economic facts.

Paul

On 28 Nov 2003 02:39:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
pamsuX (Allen Meece) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The World's problems are one of the motivations for travelling in space in
the
first place, that is to get away from them.
While this is true, let's not forget that plain old space tourism will fuel
the civilian conquest of space.

This is likely.

There would be a steady stream of Lunar
tourists today if Nixon, that ~bleep!, had allowed nasa to follow up the Apollo
program. (which included a manned Lunar station!)

This is a fantasy, not a fact.

--
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 . ..
On 28 Nov 2003 02:39:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
pamsuX (Allen Meece) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The World's problems are one of the motivations for travelling in space in
the
first place, that is to get away from them.
While this is true, let's not forget that plain old space tourism will fuel
the civilian conquest of space.

This is likely.

There would be a steady stream of Lunar
tourists today if Nixon, that ~bleep!, had allowed nasa to follow up the Apollo
program. (which included a manned Lunar station!)

This is a fantasy, not a fact.


Now, now - that statement comes directly out of your gut with no
analysis whatever. There is a reasonable probability that a second
Kennedy term expands the space program while adopting more direct
international controls to limit and reduce the spread of nuclear and
missile weapons systems.

I imagine that instead of the world spending $5 trillion deploying
advanced MIRVed nuclear warheads, the world instead spends $500
billion on minimal systems of assured destruction, whilst spending $1
to $2 trillion to bring the dreams of the 40s 50s and 60s to
profitability in the 70s and 80s - under conditions that support
private investment in space based assets and resource development.

I imagine that the savings of $3 trillion is spent on international
economic development, most not taxed away at all, which results in a
world far wealthier and safer than the world we inhabit today. A
world where billions of people become customers of United States
business and whose development are seen as great opportunities for
growth. A world that through the combination of space resource
development, spread of high technology, and free access to markets and
capital, approaches a quadrillion dollars per year in annual
production by the year 2000.

This isn't fantasy. This is a very real possibility. A possibility
that was embraced by one President, and could again be embraced by our
present global community as a means to build a world that everyone
wants.


I imagine

James White wrote:
Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.


Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?



Get British intelligence to say spammers have weapons of mass destruction.

Then Bush will jam guided missiles up their butts.

I know it's not a market solution, but I still like it.

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

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:
Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.


Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?



Get British intelligence to say spammers have weapons of mass destruction.

Then Bush will jam guided missiles up their butts.

I know it's not a market solution, but I still like it.


I like Spam

--
Terrell Miller


"Very often, a 'free' feestock will still lead to a very expensive system.
One that is quite likely noncompetitive"
- Don Lancaster

James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often. If the purveyors
of spam have to sort through thousands of useless replies for every
valid one, they will be unable to cope. That may not be a "market
solution", but it could work.

Farming is such a small part of the economy that we should just do away
with it and turn the land over to more economically productive uses.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Economics re change
is always a margin issue. If today the marginal value of land is higher for
housing that DOES NOT mean that tomorrow it won't be the other way around.

I don't claim to be an economist, though I have taken college level
courses on economics so I think I have a good feel for it. Also, just
so there's no misunderstanding, that remark was intended to be sarcastic
and does not represent my own opinion. I have, however, seen remarks
(by individuals like Julian Simon) which do indeed appear to indicate
that an ever growing population and an ever shrinking agricultural base
is not a problem, so it didn't come completely out of thin air. What I
don't recall seeing are any significant historical examples of urban
areas that have reverted to agriculture - absent a total economic
collapse.

Extraordinary markets require extraordinary launch vehicles. You're
putting the cart before the horse.

No, the original was exactly correct. Even for a lone inventor toiling to
make the extraordinary launch vehicle----though he/she FAILS---was still "a
market" for the vehicle and willing to pay the price.

Personally, I wouldn't consider a developer, whether a lone individual
or a Multinational Conglomerate, to be a market. My point was that we
have to have a marketable vehicle before we can develop the markets - an
extraordinary vehicle if we want to develop extraordinary markets. I
think it is an important point because there has been a tendency to
believe that we shouldn't build a fully-reusable launch vehicle until
the markets exist to "justify" the extraordinary development cost based
on launch cost savings. That will not happen, IMHO.
--

James E. White
Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It Sell?
How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable
(Before Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com
Also: www.booksforinventors.com and www.idearights.com
[Follow sig link for email addr.Replies go to spam bit-bucket]

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.


How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:

"Dick Morris" wrote in message
...


James White wrote:

Dick Morris
Yes, I know, the market is the ultimate answer for every problem.

Unfortunately not every problem. Take spam, for instance. Is there
any
market solution that could work?

How about we try the old "fight fire with fire" approach: spam them
back. The standard recomendation has been to never reply to spam, but
I
think that approach has long outlived it's usefullness. Spam
recipients
should by all means reply to spam - early and often.

No, they should not, since almost all spam has faked headers. So you'll
be
hurting everyone else in the chain EXCEPT the spammers.


How exactly do the spammers expect to make money if there is no way to
reply to them directly?

Web pages. Phone calls, etc.

Add to the fact that much so called "spam" these days are merely conduits to
send worms to infect your machine and the sender expects no response (other
than the worm sending back a "I'm installed and now own machine XYZ") and
you'll see this doesn't work very well.