A really great essay by Keith Cowing

Check it out here!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Tho, budget wise , I puzzle over what the White House and
the Congress really want to do?

I mean, at this late date, Nasa has yet to submit bill for
a supplemental to the 04 budget in order to Return to Flight!

In article ,
Al Jackson wrote:
Check it out here!
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

You have to read through 2/3 of this analysis before getting to the two
most important words: fiscal reality. Behind the scenes, this is fiscal
reality in Washington:

If we want smaller, less-intrusive government, we have to "starve the
beast." Cutting their allowance is the only way to put politicians
on a spending leash. And that means tax cuts, tax cuts and more
tax cuts. The recent Bush/Republican rebate was just a small
down-payment. Time to break out the meat cleaver.

- Chuck Muth, "Commentary: More tax cuts please,"

If you want a space policy that "goes somewhere", don't expect the Bush
administration to get any more work out of "the beast". They're already
whipping it hard and they plan to cut its rations further.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:00:30 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Al Jackson wrote:
Check it out here!
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

You have to read through 2/3 of this analysis before getting to the two
most important words: fiscal reality. Behind the scenes, this is fiscal
reality in Washington:

If we want smaller, less-intrusive government, we have to "starve the
beast." Cutting their allowance is the only way to put politicians
on a spending leash. And that means tax cuts, tax cuts and more
tax cuts. The recent Bush/Republican rebate was just a small
down-payment. Time to break out the meat cleaver.

- Chuck Muth, "Commentary: More tax cuts please,"

If you want a space policy that "goes somewhere", don't expect the Bush
administration to get any more work out of "the beast". They're already
whipping it hard and they plan to cut its rations further.

"Cut its rations"?

What planet have you been vacationing on, Greg? This is one of the
biggest-spending administrations and Congresses in the history of the
Republic.

--
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:

Joseph Schumpeter showed that business is the only creator of wealth
in an industrial society. This wealth creation gets spent several
ways. These include;

(1) Profit (which is reinvested)
(2) Labor/Management (which contributes to wealth creation)
(3) Taxes (which does not contribute directly to wealth creation)

If the government takes more money than is created by profitable
activities, it has exceeded the limit of business to support it. This
limit, known as the schumpeter limit, changes with improvements in
productivity.

What happens when the government takes more money than business
creates? Business owners disinvest in existing enterprises to pay the
taxes. This leads to stagflation.

According to Schumpeter, profit is good, since it gets reinvested in
productive activity, and this reinvestment has been shown over time to
actually increase productivity of the average worker.

When governments tax below the schumpeter limit profits are earned by
business owners, and these business owners can reinvest a portion of
that profit into their business expanding and improving them. In
short, low taxes lead to underlying economic growth and innovation.

In this context the government serves society best by spending the
least. This doesn't necessarily mean governments must deny their
citizens important public services. It only means that governments
must provide these services at reasonable prices. Unfortunately,
governments are not set up to be economically competitive. How to
naturally create a situation where governments tend to efficiency is
an unsolved problem at present. One that we must resolve if we are to
have better government in the future.

Whre does this leave space travel?

Well, drawing a parallel between the development of space travel today
and the development of air travel in the early parts of the 20th
century, we can see that there is a role for government to play. The
first is performing and coordinating, supporting and dispersing
results related to fundamental research in space transportation
technology. The second, is creating the conditions where market
forces operate in the area of space travel. The third, is encouraging
efficiencies and capital formation in space travel businesses.

The reality is quite different than the ideal described above. The
result is a cessation in real space travel development.

The first step described above is not performed. That's because the
US government, along with all space faring nations, recognize the
clear connection between space travel technology and long-range
missile technology. For this reason all governments treat missile
technology as secret and forbid and in fact take steps to control, the
spread of this technology beyond those people they approve and
control.

The second step described above is also not present. That's because
the US and all other nations have signed a treaty that does not
recognize the right of anyone anywhere for anyreason to own resources
and profit making assets beyond the surface of Earth, or in
international waters. This flies in the face of the requirement that
for an orderly market to exist, property rights must not only be
possible, but strictly enforced. This is not the case in the world
today.

The third step does not take place because all approved government
space programs are rewarded on a cost-plus basis through approved
government programs. So, only those who have been approved to receive
government funds obtain them. There is no competitive marketplace out
there to develop. Further, cost-plus contracts allow contractors to
make more money only if they can defend higher costs of production.
This is just the opposite of market driven programs where lower costs
mean greater profits for the businesses who attain them. While public
concerns require regulation of space launch and space operations the
regulations should not be overly burdensome to smaller entrepreneurial
operations.

So, while the Schumpeter limit says government must do more with less
money, in order to maintain a growth oriented society, common sense
tells us we should manage missile proliferation threats more directly
and openly than making secret 50 year old missile technology. NASAs
proper role is as a catalyst for fundamental research and a
clearinghouse for information related to this research. We must come
to recognize the rights of businesses and individuals to own and make
a profit from resources and assets in space and in the oceans. It is
only in this way that private capital will be attracted to space
investments. We must also establish a tax and regulatory environment
around space investment that favors capital formation in space travel.

By doing these things, provide a reliable source of valid technical
information, provide ownership rights to celestial bodies within the
solar system, provide a regulatory and tax environment favorable to
space investment - we can unleash trillions of dollars of private
investment in space related enterprise.

In this environment, NASA would play the role of NACA in the early
part of the 20th century. And very quickly, we would see the rise of
a space travel industry of unprecedented size and capabilities. If a
small user fee were charged based on profits made in space, to pay for
NASA research services, NASA would in this environment, actually grow
with the growing size and scope of this emerging space industry.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to boost our
military superiority.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~

On 14 Nov 2003 02:06:28 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:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

--
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
:

On 14 Nov 2003 02:06:28 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:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=894

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

For that matter, is that *not* why Kennedy initiated the moon program?


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On 14 Nov 2003 14:53:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our
military superiority.

Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

For that matter, is that *not* why Kennedy initiated the moon program?

Well, to be fair, not really. It was to win the Cold War by
non-military means. But it had little to do with space.

--
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:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 14 Nov 2003 14:53:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
: Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: Well, it didn't say much. Just a buncha speculation.
: Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
: boost our
: military superiority.
:
: Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?
:
: For that matter, is that *not* why Kennedy initiated the moon program?

: Well, to be fair, not really. It was to win the Cold War by
: non-military means. But it had little to do with space.

What about the speculation of actually going to the moon with the
Russians? JFk was alleged to have actually suggested that. I think the
Apollo-Soyuz in 75 would have occurred earlier had JFK lived. But that is
my speculation.

Eric

: --
: 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:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Repugnican presidents never help space programs unless they are to
boost our military superiority.
Is that why Reagan initiated the space station program?

Yes, in the sense of military symbolism rather than direct military power.
Reagan intended the space station to remind the world that (a) America
deserved to win the cold War, and (b) it had the technology to do so.
It was a Kennedyesque calculation. Indeed, Reagan's State of the Union
alluded to Kennedy's speech in promising that the space station would be
completed "within a decade". (See http://history.nasa.gov/reagan84.htm .)
Military symbolism is also why it was called "Space Station Freedom".

You have a point in that the agenda of the space station was to cure
diseases and improve vehicle engines (by medical research and metallurgy
in microgravity). So maybe it should have been called "Space Station
Longevity and Transportation" rather than "Space Station Freedom".
But that's just the nature of symbolism. In fact, in his 1986 State
of the Union, Reagan explicitly connected civilian NASA with military
superiority. He said that NASA could invent a Mach 25 "Orient
Express" (the National Space Plane project), and he said
that "the same" technology would "render nuclear weapons obselete and
free mankind from the prison of nuclear terror". See

http://www.geocities.com/americanpresidencynet/1986.htm

In the end, it was the same technology: non-existent technology.
There is no national space plane and nuclear weapons aren't obselete.
That is the final conclusion of "Reaganesque" space policy.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *