A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 15th 06, 08:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

You seem to be assuming facts not in evidence - the existence of a
space-based infrastructure that needs supplying from space. If you're
talking about selling to Earth-based customers, everything on this list
is cheaper to manufacture or acquire on Earth, or isn't something of
much use.

Cheap desalinization would provide a lot more water than getting water
from space.

There will be occassional hobbyish forays into space, but if you're
talking about -real- space economics, you have to provide a service or
product -for people on Earth- because -that's where all the customers
are-. In those areas where that is possible, such as information flow
and transfer, space investment was there. If space can provide
something else cheaper and better than you can get it on Earth, that
will attract investment too. What it might be I can't imagine, but
where you need to focus energy on is imagining it.

Water.

Lunar Lander.

Space Station Parts.

Space Station Supplies.

Mars Lander.

Space Station Astronauts.

Food.

Fuel.

Lunar Explorers.

The government currently has a budget for these items. Why not these thing
to start with?


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @


Ads
  #22  
Old May 15th 06, 10:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

(...US Airmail and Aviation)

The list was what NASA currently (or in the near future) wants to have in
orbit. The list is probably much larger. These things are equivalent to
the Airmail. The Aviation, is private enterprise.

I would think the list for private people is currently shorter.

Satellites.

Tourists.

Experiments.

But, would grow exponentially as price to orbit comes down. The lack of
gravity and nice vacuum would be useful to manufacturing.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 12:56:27 -0700, Ordover wrote:

You seem to be assuming facts not in evidence - the existence of a
space-based infrastructure that needs supplying from space. If you're
talking about selling to Earth-based customers, everything on this list
is cheaper to manufacture or acquire on Earth, or isn't something of
much use.

Cheap desalinization would provide a lot more water than getting water
from space.

There will be occassional hobbyish forays into space, but if you're
talking about -real- space economics, you have to provide a service or
product -for people on Earth- because -that's where all the customers
are-. In those areas where that is possible, such as information flow
and transfer, space investment was there. If space can provide
something else cheaper and better than you can get it on Earth, that
will attract investment too. What it might be I can't imagine, but
where you need to focus energy on is imagining it.

Water.

Lunar Lander.

Space Station Parts.

Space Station Supplies.

Mars Lander.

Space Station Astronauts.

Food.

Fuel.

Lunar Explorers.

The government currently has a budget for these items. Why not these thing
to start with?


--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @
  #23  
Old May 15th 06, 10:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

"jonathan" wrote:

Fission is also massively expensive and a typical
reactor can take 15 or 20 years to be built.


The *paperwork* for a typical reactor takes 15-20 years to process.
The actual reactor (and building) takes far less time.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #24  
Old May 15th 06, 10:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

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.


So? There was a massive amount of capital invested in railroads too
back in day. (Much of it lost.) There was also massive amounts of
capital invested in the dot-bombs, (and much of it too was lost).

Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by
a few individuals - not the broader financial world.

(But then, such facts and complications don't fit neatly into a
typical Randian one-liner sound bite.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
  #25  
Old May 16th 06, 01:00 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..
A market make in heaven. '


"Earth" is not a *market*. You don't have a clue.


  #26  
Old May 16th 06, 01:01 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"jonathan" wrote in message
. ..
Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.


Obviously. If it's as easy as you say, why aren't *you* doing it?


  #27  
Old May 16th 06, 01:42 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Eric Chomko wrote:

: 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?


No.

When's the break-even point, Rand?


I doubt if you even know what that phrase means.
  #29  
Old May 16th 06, 04:07 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

David Ball wrote:

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

Not enough to matter.

:Actually, I've wondered if we could do some weather and energy usage
:control with shades or reflectors in space. Could you diminish the
ower of a hurricane by cutting off much of the sunlight to it since
:it seems like warmth that makes hurricanes grow.

Hurricanes draw their power primarily from the water. If shade would
do it they'd all stop at night.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #30  
Old May 16th 06, 05:50 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Derek Lyons wrote:

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.



So?


So, significant money disagrees with Mr. Oldover (not surprising, since
most sensible people do).

Furthermore, much of the investment in private space is represented by
a few individuals - not the broader financial world.


Much of that money is state government money.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.