...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.

So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy?

Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.
Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a
kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these
Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any
motivation to get power from space.

You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we
will go into space, then trying to justify it

wrote in message
oups.com...

Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.

So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy?

Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.
Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a
kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these
Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any
motivation to get power from space.


You're forgetting about the rest of the world that doesn't live
in a western-like economy. China is growing at ten percent
a year. Indonesia, India and the Asian tigers are having explosive
growth. Now these countries have very little industrialization.

When the rest of the world becomes as industrialized and energy
hungry as we are, they will be pump this planet dry. And all the
while using very little pollution controls.



You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we
will go into space, then trying to justify it


No, you have it backwards. All things being equal, the simplist
explanation or solution is generally the best one.

Small steps do not lead to great accomplishments.
As the insignificance of each step fails to inspire
the next one. And is swept away by the next issue
that comes along.

A /large goal/ inspires and initiates those countless small steps
in pursuit of the long term dream. As the large goal has
magnificent benefits and countless justifications.

One approach fails, the other succeeds.

An intelligent and inspiring goal is the first step to success.





s

Do keep in mind that the US Gov sponsored the Airmail program for
multiple reasons - of which 'jumpstarting the aviation industry' only
one, if not a side effect.

Hmm, didn't find much about this in a quick web search. I found a few
mentions of "Kelly Act", the text of the act, and the interesting ways
it was amended later, but not much about the motivations. I don't
think the Congressional Record is online from back then, for
example...

Jim Kingdon wrote:
Do keep in mind that the US Gov sponsored the Airmail program for
multiple reasons - of which 'jumpstarting the aviation industry' only
one, if not a side effect.

Hmm, didn't find much about this in a quick web search. I found a few
mentions of "Kelly Act", the text of the act, and the interesting ways
it was amended later, but not much about the motivations. I don't
think the Congressional Record is online from back then, for
example...

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...rmail/POL5.htm

http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/wings4.htm

Well.. you have to consider that the established commercial interests
of the day were not happy with tax supported and publicly run airmail
services.

Its not like this came out of nowhere. The government was running
its own private service using its own planes and its own system
using tax supported dollars rather than contracting the work out.
The Kelly Act's sole purpose seems to have been a requirement that
the US government contract out the work rather than use its own
planes. Any result other than the commercial affects was a
side effect.

It is a mistake to think the Airmail Act suddenly created airmail.
It had been there for years prior to the Act.

I don't even think this is a case of the Airmail Act sponsoring
anything. It was a negative reaction to the existing mode of
operation. Some people behind it were hoping that it would
fall flat on its face. Some people were hoping it would help.
Some people were just plain capitalists and the system of
airmail prior to 1925 was on the socialist model.

ie, it plays out almost exactly the same as the arguments about
government owned rockets vs commercial rockets that lead to the
Commercial Space Act.

The Air Commerce Act of 1926 was the one aimed at the aviation
industry.

mike flugennock wrote:


You mean, like
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/zucocket.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zucux33.jpg ?

Please, give me a huge break.


This reminds me of a National Lampoon article supposedly from the late
1930's that had the headline "Germany intends to start robotic aerial
mail service between Europe and Britain in coming years" and showed some
German military men standing in front of a V-1.
This is a fun webpage: http://home.ionet.net/~paroales/ROCKET.HTM
Having a Rocketgram dispatched by His Highness The Maharajah would be
very cool.

Pat

http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...rmail/POL5.htm
http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/AERO/wings4.htm

Thanks; those are informative (and have references to other sources,
albeit offline ones).

Various wrinkles to this one, including:

* air mail started as a government-run enterprise, and only some years
later was contracted out.

* various wrinkles about pricing, I suppose the most extreme of which
was "Airmail carriers learned to use the subsidies to make money
regardless of the true public demand for airmail. They sometimes
sent postcards to themselves using registered mail, which required a
heavy, secure lock. The lock added weight".

Still, it does seem like the basic story of the air mail contracts
having a lot to do with getting a commercial flight industry going was
true.

As usual, it is possible to draw multiple conclusions from this
history.

Pat Flannery wrote:


mike flugennock wrote:


You mean, like
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/zucocket.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zucux33.jpg ?

Please, give me a huge break.


This reminds me of a National Lampoon article supposedly from the late
1930's that had the headline "Germany intends to start robotic aerial
mail service between Europe and Britain in coming years" and showed some
German military men standing in front of a V-1.
This is a fun webpage: http://home.ionet.net/~paroales/ROCKET.HTM
Having a Rocketgram dispatched by His Highness The Maharajah would be
very cool...

Yeah, it would; depends on how it actually arrives at your house,
though. (IN-COMIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGGG!)

--

..

"Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few:
Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!"

--grateful dead.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
"Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: wrote:
: v
:
: A market! A cargo! The US Airmail.
:
: So....what is the market/cargo for space?
:
:
: That is, of course, the heart of the problem. Where there is a market
: - comsats of various kinds - there is substantial investment and
: interest; where there isn't one, or where at the very least no one has
: thought of one, there's no investment and no interest (in the financial
: world).

: And there has been about a billion dollars of investment in private
: space vehicles recently.

With a $50K ROI? When's the break-even point, Rand? Less than a decade?
I won't being going long on commercial space company stocks just yet.

Eric

"Hyperboreea" wrote in message
ups.com...
Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.

Prolly right...

Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs.

What, are we going to run out of space in GEO? It all depends on what
assumptions we make about our space lift capability. If we build a lift
capability which can loft SPS at a rate to make a significant contribution
to global energy needs, then that's what will happen.

The fact that SPS can be tremendously enlarged without any obvious
environmental problems here on Earth is one of its selling points.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Sat, 13 May 2006 09:48:59 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:

[snipped]
Science at Nasa

Beam it Down, Scotty!

"Solar power collected in space and beamed to Earth
could be an environmentally friendly solution to our
planet's growing energy problems."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23mar_1.htm


Jonathan

Did they ever do any studies of what beaming all that power through
the atmosphere would do to things like the ozone layer and weather
patterns, or is it so small compared to what we get from the SUN that
it wouldn't make a difference.

Actually, I've wondered if we could do some weather and energy usage
control with shades or reflectors in space. Could you diminish the
power of a hurricane by cutting off much of the sunlight to it since
it seems like warmth that makes hurricanes grow. How about partially
shading places like Los Angeles on hot summer days to cut A/C energy
usage or reflecting light to add an extra hour of mild daylight in the
winter. Of course, we'd have to be extremely careful when messing with
the weather. Except for hurricanes, I'd limit it to very densely
populated areas like LA where a lot of power usage might be
eliminated. Unfortunately, being able to shade or light a large area
from space would have some military potential as well, so it's
probably against some treaty to possess such capability.

-- David