There are now more government jobs than jobs that produce real wealth.
And we wonder why the country’s going broke.
59 thoughts on “A Depressing Milestone”
Comments are closed.
There are now more government jobs than jobs that produce real wealth.
And we wonder why the country’s going broke.
Comments are closed.
Not surprising that manufacturing, mining and agricultural jobs are declining since most of the new private sector jobs are in IT, Software, research and other high tech fields. And yes, those jobs do create wealth, just look at Silicon Valley. Just as mechanization reduced the percent of the workforce needed in agriculture from around 70% to 2% automation and robotics are doing the same for manufacturing and mining and have been since Ford developed his assembly line.
Of course the big problem is the steady increase of government workers since the 1930’s. But the key metric here should be the percent of the GDP government consumes.
As I read it in 1939 there was 1 government drone for every 29 citizens, while in 2009 there was 1 drone for every 14 citizens. That is definitely deplorable, but probably simply reflects no more than that the product of government — er, whatever that might be — is fully subject to Baumol’s Cost Disease, and perhaps that the number of officers in an army, or managers in a firm, grows as the number of minions raised to a power greater than 1. You just need more layers.
But the interesting tidbits are in the details. I’m struck by the sustained surge in government employment during the Democrat’s heyday — 1966 to 1980 — as well as by the significant dip during the early Reagan Era. The Gipper really did shrink government, didn’t he? At least at first. Like no one else before or since. Amazing.
The failure of the manufacturing curve to significantly climb is really impressive. In 1939 each manufacturing worker corresponded to $82,000 of GDP (measured in 2009 dollars), while in 2009 each manufacturing worker corresponded to $830,000 of GDP — ten times more wealth per worker! That is an impressive display of the power of technology and capitalism unleashed.
It should be written down reverently on parchment, folded into a shuriken shape, lots of sharp corners, and thrust firmly up the ass of Michael Moore and his neo-Marxist fellow travelers. It should be taught in high-school along with Newton’s Second Law.
The problem of most government workers is teir low work output.
Mrs Schtumpy went from big corporate IT to government IT after the bust a few years ago. After 4 years he still is amazed at her co-workers and the low output and lack of work ethic. Many of them have NEVER worked anywhere but the government and think closing a 5 or 6 cases per day is great. She closes three times that, and she’s the lead and spends part of her day helping them and answering to the bosses. She also gets the tough cases, next tier fixes because her minions can’t do them.
One of the problems is political appointees and political connectees. They cannot be fired or reprimanded. They are not really required to do anything buy show up. However, they are counted as “workers” and their time is figured into the productivity numbers for workload and productivity equations. But it’s all done tongue in cheek, everyone knows that not everyone really works!
While most people would admit that corporate America no longer fires people the way they used to, they don’t knowingly keep 10 to 15 percent of the workforce simply because they know the boss.
excuse my typos above, that comment item posted before I finished proofing
I’m struck by the sustained surge in government employment during the Democrat’s heyday — 1966 to 1980 — as well as by the significant dip during the early Reagan Era.
I think the blip in the early 90’s is the peace dividend cut of the military. I don’t know what the peak/drop/blip is around 99/00.
Here’s a theory: Maybe the tiny blips around 1990 and 2000 are temporary census workers. You can just barely discern blips around 1960, 1970 and 1980 as well. Naturally, every decade they get larger (like the rest of the government).
“Government workers” is a bigger oxymoron than “military intelligence.”
larry j,
there are “government workers”. My own experiences and my wife’s let me know they do exist. But they seem to be the exception, not the rule.
There is currently, in my wife’s department, a senior manager who sleeps at his desk several hours per day. Several of his fellow “workers” and friends, my wife included, are concerned that he has narcolepsy. His sleeping just started 18 months ago. But when someone says something he becomes irate and swears he’s not sleeping.
Regardless of that, if ALL the worker bees know about this, certainly the bosses do too, right? She knows, from their mutual boss, that NOTHING has been nor will be said.
My tax dollars at work (or rest).
Could anyone keep their job, in a similar situation in corporate America? I doubt it.
This reflects increased productivity in goods-producing industries, and as such is at least partly good news. It’s a good thing that we can feed the country with a tiny fraction of the agricultural labor force that we had a century ago.
It would be even better if we could figure out how to make other fields, such as education, health care and defense, more productive. I would submit that it’s the nature of the work, not whether it’s run by the government or private sector, that makes the biggest difference. It isn’t as if Stanford is much more productive than Cal, or that private hospitals are more productive than VA hospitals.
I am curious to see if anyone will figure out how to use technology to dramatically improve educational productivity in the decades ahead. There’s some low-hanging fruit — why not broadcast one professor’s intro economics lectures nationwide instead of having each college host its own? — but also a lot of social inertia. And some things — e.g. grading essays — are hard to automate.
Could anyone keep their job, in a similar situation in corporate America? I doubt it.
Don’t. Dilbert is not all fiction.
I can go with that Mr. Hensley, because it also explains the sharp rise before the fall.
It would be even better if we could figure out how to make other fields, such as education, health care and defense, more productive.
By many measures, defense is much more productive than in the past. Back in 2003, I saw a briefing about how the radical increase in weapons accuracy has made for greater efficiency. According to the briefing, during WWII the CEP for daylight, high-altitude bombing was on the order of 2300 feet. If you had to have a statistical certainty of putting 2 bombs on a specific target, you needed to send a force of 1000 bombers (each with a typical crew load of 10 men) plus escort fighters and have each bomber drop 9 bombs. So, to guarantee getting 2 bombs on the target, you needed to send over 10,000 men. Those planes that survived the mission would return to base, be serviced, and be ready to do it again in a day or two.
Today, the CEP of a JDAMS is about 5 meters. A single F-15E Strike Eagle can carry 6 2,000 pound JDAMS bombs. That plane, with a crew of 2, could drop 2 bombs with almost certain accuracy on the target, then go on and do the same for 2 more targets on a single mission. The plane could then return to base, refuel and rearm, and do it again several times in a day. Even when you factor in the other planes in the strike package (e.g. tanker and ECM support), that’s a tremendous increase in efficiency.
Modern weapons, from the infantry rifle through Navy vessels and on to military aircraft, are much more powerful than their WWII counterparts. It takes far fewer personnel to accomplish a mission than it did back then. Any way you measure it, the military is more efficient today. Notice I didn’t say cheaper, just more efficient.
With respect to JDAM accuracy and F-15 capacity, also note this eliminates a great deal of ground forces which would previously have been required to accompish a given mission. A considerable increase in efficiency right there.
It would be even better if we could figure out how to make other fields, such as education, health care and defense, more productive
Go here and learn why that’s very likely logically impossible, or at least exceedingly difficult, excepting defense where as others have noted technology can indeed magnify the average PFC’s productivity quite a bit.
I am curious to see if anyone will figure out how to use technology to dramatically improve educational productivity in the decades ahead.
Some of us have. We chortle when Harvard jacks their tuition up 10% a year. I’d offer to sell you some stock, but you’d just give the money to Democrats and other such poxy knaves, so forget it.
I guess you did not get the memo. Welcome to the services economy.
Manufacturing kept shedding jobs to automation or being offshored altogether. Mines were mostly offshored. Agriculture increased yields with fertilizers, pesticides, genetic engineering and whatnot.
Even government will eventually come round to it. Remember tabulating machines for the census in the XIXth century? You probably deliver your IRS tax forms using the Internet today and think nothing of it. If laws did not change so often, government information systems would probably be more mature by now.
Of course if tangible jobs get automated, only knowledge workers will remain. Just hope no one ever invents human level AI.
With respect to JDAM accuracy and F-15 capacity, also note this eliminates a great deal of ground forces which would previously have been required to accompish a given mission. A considerable increase in efficiency right there.
You’re right. According to this article, in 1945 an Army Air Force bomb group had 2261 personnel to support and operate 72 heavy bombers (B-17s and B-24s). A 1,000 bomber raid would require at least 14 heavy bomb groups (not all planes were available on any given day), so at least 31,654 personnel (not counting the fighter escorts and their associated personnel) were needed to guarantee putting those 2 bombs on the target.
Depending on the target, modern weapons can be even more impressive. A B-1B (heavily used in Afghanistan) can carry upwards of 70,000 pounds of bombs in a varied mix of weapons. They can reach the operations area and loiter until needed, dropping the weapons requested by the controllers, and then loiter some more until the next target is identified. If the target isn’t overly hardened, the new small diameter bombs allow the planes to carry 4 little bombs in place of one 2,000 pound bomb, increasing the number of targets you can hit on a single mission.
BTW some things in the health care industry have been severely automated. Blood tests are one example. Many tests used to require a Mark I eyeball looking at a slab under a microscope, when today you just put the blood sample into a contraption which does everything for you. A lot of the published papers I have seen in medical imaging of late deal with image processing, as an expert tool to increase productivity.
I can see front desk services imploding as they get replaced by information systems. Surgeries do not require anesthesia, and you often come back home the same day. I suspect much of the book cramming doctors need to do will be increasingly replaced by computerized forms thereof. Check out the number of medical wikis popping up lately.
I was actually referring to conventional ground forces. The type that would be used to destroy a ground target that otherwise could not be destroyed by air strike. As air strike accuracy and capacity go up, the need for conventional ground forces go down, and overall efficiency increases. My thinking anyway, fwiw.
I would submit that it’s the nature of the work, not whether it’s run by the government or private sector, that makes the biggest difference.
Jim, I submit that the “nature” of the work is highly dependent on who is running the work and whether they have an interest in the work being completed in a competent and timely manner. Private business doesn’t guarantee competent work, but at least someone (the owner of the business) has an interest in seeing the business successfully run. In government there are even circumstances where incompetent work is rewarded with greater funding and power (for example, federal level law enforcement and terrorism). That sole difference is why the private world tends to be much more competent than the government world.
Even the competent parts of government like the military follow this rule IMHO. If you’re competent and deliver in tough situations, then you get promoted. You and your fellow soldiers survive more often (even in peacetime). There is relatively prompt and concrete reward for doing your job. Even in the political leadership, there is an interest in a competent military. One of the quicker ways to lose power is to lose a war. From top to bottom, there is an alignment of the interests of the worker (soldier or leader) with the goals of the organization (defense of the US and its interests).
Carl, that wiki states: In the case of education, the Baumol Effect has been used as at least partial justification for the fact that, in recent decades, college tuition has risen faster than the general rate of inflation. Would you not agree that the primary reason college tuitions have been increasing at greater that inflation is due to government interference in the form of subsidies, which corrupts the natural free-market forces?
Jim,
[[[There’s some low-hanging fruit — why not broadcast one professor’s intro economics lectures nationwide instead of having each college host its own?]]]
That is already being done in the online classes offered by universities beyond the elite few everyone thinks about. I know I scripted a number for the University of Houston – Victoria nearly a decade ago, which then recorded them in a proper sound studio using one of the professors who had a good speaking voice. I did a similar project for National University in the 1990’s. It works especially well online because it allows the faculty to focus on managing the threaded discussions in class and providing better feedback on assignments (i.e. grading).
The problem with doing this with the elite institutions is the ego of the faculty there each of which think they know more about the subject then anyone else and resist attempts to standardize course content to preserve “academic integrity and freedom”…
BTW increased productivity is the hallmark of online learning. 15 years ago I used to teach 3 to 4 classes a session on ground to students that had to physically be in class. Now I teach 8-10 classes online as an adjunct in that same time frame with students from all over the world, including several serving combat tours at fire bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hopefully educational laggards like Stanford, Harvard and MIT will catch up someday.
Curt:
You are assuming the value of inflation reported by the Federal Reserve is actually accurate. Looking at several price indexes inflation seems to be increasing much more than advertised.
Hi All,
One of the ways to improve government “productivity” (an oxymoron?) would be to put many government functions online. For example I am able to pay my credit card bill in seconds online, but need to send a physical check to an physical office to pay for my business license since they don’t take electronic payments. I know from teaching ecommerce it costs about $4-5 dollars of labor/time/etc to process a physical check while processing an electronic payment costs only about 25-50 cents, mostly in fees to the merchant from the banks handling it so you could also imagine the savings in costs of government.
Of course some of this is improving as local governments are being dragged online with much kicking and screaming by the unions. And somehow the “safe guards” they use eat up most of the savings from going online.
OT: Michelle Malkin is reporting that Connecticut Democratic senator Chris Dodd will not run for re-election. State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run for the seat.
Would you not agree that the primary reason college tuitions have been increasing at greater that inflation is due to government interference in the form of subsidies, which corrupts the natural free-market forces?
I’ll take a shot. In Texas, both UT and A&M are fighting hard to curtail the number of students who get automatic acceptance and then either state guaranteed pre-paid tuition fees (Texas Tomorrow Fund) or federal and state student grants. The reason is simple, the number of applicants and students were exceeding the capabilities of the Universities. When demand exceeds supply, price goes up.
Of course, this has nothing to do with efficiency, and it is why Jim will complain about the lack of efficiency (code for “it costs more”, see previous discussions about efficiency gains in defense, which he claims inefficient) in education and healthcare. And will continue to do so, because of the poor choices he makes at the ballot box.
Universal healthcare increases demand on an already short supply of healthcare providers. Improvements in efficiency aren’t keeping up with demand growth, and won’t just because more people are made to go to the doctor. The cost of medical care will go up, and where it hasn’t in other countries is by the implementation of arbitration boards for handling medical malpractice (something that can be accomplished via tort reform) or rationing of healthcare (something Jim has previously stated was reasonable).
Same situation with education at primary, secondary, and college levels. Most agree with compulsory primary and secondary schooling in the US, but to meet the demand, the quality of the supply decreases to obtain the quantity needed. With demands for college access for everyone, the quality of college educations have gone down across the board, and where the drop is less, it can be attributed to increases in tuition designed to discourage demand.
Sadly, wikipedia’s leftist writers, completely miss the mark in explaining this. In the Texas Tomorrow Fund wiki, wikipedia attributes the increased cost in tuition in the state to deregulation of tuition prices by the state. The state deregulated tuition prices; because the cost to the state was increasing as the subsidized artificially low prices meant the burden of cost was transferred from the students demanding education to the taxpayers.
For example I am able to pay my credit card bill in seconds online, but need to send a physical check to an physical office to pay for my business license since they don’t take electronic payments.
Thomas,
I suspect you already know this, but the previous Harris Country Tax Collector did a lot of this during his time in office. The result was a far more efficient means of both collecting taxes (good for the government) and actually more pleasurable experience for the taxpayer. It’s bad enough you have to pay taxes, but it was downright deplorable to be required to take precious time to go to some government office, stand in line, and hand somebody a check to make a routine payment. Now, the only people who are required to suffer that misery are deliquents.
And once this was implemented, it was also easier for the government to identify deliquents. The efficiency came from the accounting databases being updated electronically faster than they previously were by hand. If hundreds of thousands of people pay their tax bill electronically and on time (as those thousands are wont to do), then it is faster to determine the actual status of tax collection. Deliquents began sticking out, so it was easier to target them and collect back taxes.
Not surprising that manufacturing, mining and agricultural jobs are declining since most of the new private sector jobs are in IT, Software, research and other high tech fields. And yes, those jobs do create wealth, just look at Silicon Valley.
Very good, Tom.
Now, apply that to space. If services like are legitimate industries that create weath on Earth, does it make sense to have a space policy that assumes that mining the Moon, Mars, etc. is the only “real” industry that can create wealth in space?
As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, communications is a service industry, and satellite communications has been generating wealth for decades. Maybe you should rethink your views on service industries like space travel and transportation?
Point-to-point transportation, satellite servicing, Earth observation, entertainment, research, education, etc. may not be as sexy as a Kennedy-style sprint to [fill in your favorite planet], but the startup costs are much lower, and these industries will create an orbital infrastructure that makes it possible to build those mining colonies you want without spending $2 billion a pop for Ares V rockets.
It’s one thing to dream about Congress creating a “government-owned corporation” with a budget comparable to NASA’s that will develop the Moon, but we live in the real world where that’s clearly not going to happen. If government productivity is an “oxymoron,” as you say, why not consider approaches that don’t require another Government Motors? (Like the suborbital research market that held your attention for a few days?)
Would you not agree that the primary reason college tuitions have been increasing at greater that inflation is due to government interference in the form of subsidies, which corrupts the natural free-market forces?
I believe government subsidizies are a contributing factor in the rising cost of tuition but couldn’t conclusively prove one way or the other if it’s the primary factor. Some other considerations include:
1. Rapid growth in the college administration department,
2. Low productivity of college professors (they don’t teach very many courses per term),
3. For public universities, the decline in state funding,
4. The race to attract students by adding expensive recreational services, and
5. A wage war to attract professors despite a glut of Ph.Ds.
No doubt there are many other reasons as well, these are just some that I’ve read about over the past few years.
The 94-99 spike coincides with the acceleration of the Wall Street bullish trend that followed after the 94 election. The subsequent dive coincides with the economic hits from the dot-bombs and 9/11.
Note the immediately preceding downward trend. Even after the recession (caused by the S&L crisis, I think) ended in mid-1992, the job numbers were still going down. Maybe the HillaryCare threat and Clinton’s sequel to the Bush 300-billion tax hike discouraged hiring? The trend began its reverse before the ’94 election – perhaps the demise of HillaryCare encourage hiring?
The dot-com bust never surprised me. Infant industries always go through a phase where most of the new entrants get redshirted – only a relative few figure out how to make a buck out of the thing that nobody’s ever done before. Technically the dot-coms are not so much a new industry as a new tool for old industries, but the principle still applies.
I have an anecdote about government productivity: when you report the death of a Federal retiree to Office of Personnel Management, it takes OPM 3-5 weeks to send the life insurance paperwork. The bell curve for that timeframe skews heavily toward the 5. This process should be as efficient as ordering a credit report.
when you report the death of a Federal retiree to Office of Personnel Management, it takes OPM 3-5 weeks to send the life insurance paperwork.
So you want to get started at least a month before you die, huh? Good tip.
This process should be as efficient as ordering a credit report.
The very concept of efficient government gives me the creeps. You want they should make the trains run on time? Process the zeks into and out of the gulag swiftly? Brrr.
I like the idea of cheap government. Like cheap clothes, or IKEA dishware. You don’t really care if it’s inefficient and breaks after the first beer bong match on the dining room table, because it just doesn’t cost enough to be worth the worry.
I’m not even sure I prize efficiency per se in the military. I don’t care whether the F-22 is the warbird that gets the most kills per R&D dollar — I care that it gets the most kills period, or perhaps most kills per pilot death. I’m not wanting the K-Mart Blue Light Special attack helicopter or close air-support gunship — I want the badass turbocharged 4.5L double overhead doohickey BMW 999i custom-pinstripe version that scares the piss out of our enemies.
Ed,
[[[As I’ve pointed out many times in the past, communications is a service industry, and satellite communications has been generating wealth for decades. Maybe you should rethink your views on service industries like space travel and transportation?]]]
I am not sure why you are setting a strawmen but I have often pointed out that the NASA budget accounts for only a small fraction of the 250 billion USD plus global space industry. Which is why I am always puzzled when New Space Advocates continue to focus on NASA as their market. Or a market as limited and fickle as space tourism. Yes, it would be fun to ride into space, but space tourism will have as much impact on the commercial development of space as Antarctic tourism has had on development of Antarctica.
In terms of sub-orbital, I pointed out in my feasibility study for the Southwest Regional Spaceport (now Space America) back in the early 1990’s that the key market for sub-orbital flights was atmospheric, research and education flights, NOT tourism, a view that only now the New Space movement seems to be discovering and taking seriously. It will be interesting now to see if they did out that old report and create the institutional infrastructure needed to make the atmospheric, research and education markets work. Hint- it won’t be the current focus of forcing NASA to buy commercial sub-orbital research flights. That is a sure ticket to kill that emerging market in no time a quick death by NASA RFI and RFP.
In terms of the Moon, the problem there is the infrastructure costs for your start-up. If you wish to start a commercial business on the Moon you have to build not only your spacecraft, but your communication system, navigation aids and a lot of additional infrastructure. Government has always had a role in building infrastructure from the early postal roads to the Internet. Why should the Moon be any different? A Lunar Infrastructure Development Corporation would create both a market for New Space and lower the cost for commercial lunar ventures. FYI if private entrepreneurs could do it without government help the Moon should be crawling with them now. Instead LunaCorp, Blast-off and Trans-Orbital are just memories.
As for heavy lift. Do you seriously understand what type of equipment it takes to do any real mining? And the size of it? And do you seriously expect to land such equipment on the Moon without a heavy lift vehicle? Small rockets are fine if you are just sending a couple of tourists to gawk at the landscape for a day or so, but if you want to create any kind of serious economic enterprise you need the ability to lift large masses cheaply. Bob Truax’s reusable Sea Dragon at a 550 metric tons to LEO it is a good start when you are ready to get serious about mining the Moon or NEOs. And opening the space frontier.
And no NASA shouldn’t be involved in any of it. That is why I keep proposing government space options beyond NASA. NASA has neither the culture or resources for commercial development of Space and its a shame advocates waste so much time focusing on NASA.
NASA has its role to do in space exploration and opening the space frontier. But NASA should not be allowed anywhere near space commerce. Oil and water don’t mix and neither does NASA and space commerce.
Hi Leland,
Actually I live in San Diego (but moving to Elko Nevada later this month) so I haven’t seen what Harris County is doing, but it sounds like a step in the right direction.
Tom
Can I haz cheezburger plz? Like NOW! And Pepsi.
That is the relevant efficiency concern of about 85% of the population right there.
“it’s inefficient and breaks after the first beer bong match on the dining room table”
Me wonders why I am not at more of Carl’s parties.
I am always puzzled when New Space Advocates continue to focus on NASA as their market. Or a market as limited and fickle as space tourism.
What “New Space Advocates” are focusing on NASA as their market, Tom? Unless you’re talking your own infatuation with Constellation.
space tourism will have as much impact on the commercial development of space as Antarctic tourism has had on development of Antarctica.
I don’t see your point. Are there a lot of big mining industries in Antarctica that I’ve missed? Or a big snowball manufacturing industry? Or have you finally embraced Pascal Lee’s view that space should be just like Antarctica — a laboratory for government scientists but never any significant development or long-term habitation?
There are other models besides Antarctica. Look at the United States, and you’ll see lots of airlines, hotels, etc. Do you think the “limited and fickle” travel industry hasn’t contributed to the commercial development of America?
In terms of sub-orbital, I pointed out in my feasibility study for the Southwest Regional Spaceport (now Space America) back in the early 1990’s that the key market for sub-orbital flights was atmospheric, research and education flights, NOT tourism
The problem, Tom, is that you’re trapped in the old Von Braun / Van Allen mindset. Space is not a zero-sum game. Research and “tourism” are not mutually exclusive. If you talk to researchers, you’ll find a lot of them want to fly along with their payloads, for very sound reasons.
Hint- it won’t be the current focus of forcing NASA to buy commercial sub-orbital research flights.
Who’s “forcing” NASA to buy commercial suborbital research flights? The Administrator of NASA, who requested the money? The Senators and Representatives who approved it?
How horrible! Giving NASA money to do the sort of research it was chartered to do! 🙂
In terms of the Moon, the problem there is the infrastructure costs for your start-up.
That’s why the Moon is a planet too far. (And so is Mars.) Your plan is like telling the Pilgrims they should forget about settling New England and just head for California. It doesn’t make sense. You want to skip all the necessary intermediate steps because you’re impatient or they aren’t sexy enough. It’s the same mistake Kennedy and Von Braun made.
As for heavy lift. Do you seriously understand what type of equipment it takes to do any real mining? And the size of it? And do you seriously expect to land such equipment on the Moon without a heavy lift vehicle?
Do you think heavy equipment can’t be disassembled for shipment?
If you want to see the type of equipment used for “real mining,” look at a picture of the Saturn V sitting on its crawler. That crawler is basically a commercial dragline mining platform. Do you think that even the Saturn V could launch a mining platform that big, in one piece? The crawler weighs 6 million pounds. It would take 30 Saturns to put it into orbit. Do you really expect to build a rocket 30 times the size of the Saturn V — and a lander big enough to carry a 6-million pound payload?
The only practical way to get equipment like that on the Moon is to assemble it there, either from pieces brought up from Earth, pieces manufactured on the Moon, or both.
And no NASA shouldn’t be involved in any of it. That is why I keep proposing government space options beyond NASA.
And fund it how, Tom? You keep saying that government funding isn’t a zero-sum game and Congress will approve huge budget increases if space activists just ask for them. Unfortunately for you, Congress doesn’t see it that way. Whether you like it or not, there is a finite limit to how much Congress is willing to spend on civil space programs. You say “NASA shouldn’t be involved” but you still want NASA to build Ares V and Orion. That will require a big increase in the NASA budget. On top of that, you want Congress to fund a new civil space agency with a budget as large (or nearly as large) as NASA’s? It’s not going to happen.
Once again, Tom, you moonies are your own worst enemy. Until you start to come up with practical plans that can be funded within realistic budgets, you’ll continue to get nowhere. You need to either come up with a way of getting to the Moon that doesn’t cost hundreds of billions of dollars, or put off going to the Moon for a while and concentrate on destinations that are cheaper and easier to get to.
“space tourism will have as much impact on the commercial development of space as Antarctic tourism has had on development of Antarctica.”
Unlike Antarctica, development in space is not banned by international treaties; though I’m sure the Greenists would love to do so.
“Government has always had a role in building infrastructure from the early postal roads to the Internet. Why should the Moon be any different?”
Why should the US government be any more interested in building infrastructure on the Moon than in building infrastructure in Tajibakiwakistan? Neither of them are US territory, so it has nothing to gain from doing so.
Ed,
Once again you choose to miss all the key points. As I have said before, I really don’t care what NASA does because NASA is irrelevant to the economic development of space. I could care less about Orion or Ares V. Personally if they keep NASA busy and out of their hair New Space should be glad.
New Space firms that are tying their fortune to COTS like contracts from NASA will regret it. I am sure Rocketplane does. They would have been sitting pretty for the sub-orbital research market but are now just a memory by betting their limited money on COTS.
Yep the Crawler does weight 6 million pounds and was bought to the Cape in pieces. But there is a minimum size to the pieces you are able to break equipment down to and many will still be much bigger then its possible to land on the Moon with a EELV class vehicle. Again spend some time around real mines and learn. Its gone a long way from a prospector with a pick and a mule. That is why even with fewer miners that ever before the U.S. is producing more coal then ever before. Its called productivity and it requires big machines.
There also is a huge difference between a space agency and a government corporation like the Alaska Railroad or Conrail. One is that they are able to be sold as entities to the private market if they become economically viable.
As for space tourists and research mixing on flights, tell me how many researchers do you see doing experiments on your average Southwest Airlines flight? There is a reason you use different aircraft for research and for tourists.
Bill Gates’ Evil Twin,
Only 47 countries have signed the Antarctic Treaty, there are over 200 countries in the world. If a nation hasn’t signed it they are not restricted by its provisions. Of course the signatories of the treaty could put pressure on another country that starts mining in Antarctica, but we all see how well that works with Iran and North Korea.
BTW as a sign to the future the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities of 1988 basically failed to get the necessary signatures and never entered into force. The original ban on mining from the 1959 Antarctic Treaty has expired. The Antarctic-Environmental Protocol which replaced it and bans mining is only in force to 2048, but has only been ratified by only 27 countries. And the mining ban may be repealed if the signatories agree on a regulatory system that covers mining activity.
So the mineral resources of Antarctica are not as off limits as many people believe. But tourism, rather then leading to more economic activity in Antarctica is actually have the opposite effect as it is creating a huge public sentiment against “spoiling” the wilderness with mining or other nasty economic activities.
As for heavy lift. Do you seriously understand what type of equipment it takes to do any real mining?
Cheap monkeys to do the work. I wonder how mining ever begun on Earth. Perhaps divine providence provided us with all this mining equipment, sulfuric acid, electricity, and whatnot.
If you read about the history of mining, it used to be mineral deposits were close to the surface because they were mostly unexplored. This means they are of easy access: you do not need fancy tools to mine. You do not need to mine a lot either. The intent is to build limited usable infrastructure for the initially few people living there, not pyramids in the desert. Or O’Neill colonies.
People used to live in natural caves. Then they learned to build shelters so they could live closer to where natural resources were. Most villages were located close to a source of water.
Think simple. We need simple gadgets which can be built from Moon materials by unskilled labor. Once you can survive there using local resources, and have spare time for other tasks, then you consider the complex things.
If you need to bang rocks together to do it, that is what you do.
My view is that the only mining equipment launched from Earth will be a few starter machine shops (possibly completely teleoperated), tools that can’t be readily made on the Moon (say like the brains of CNC machines or the core of teleoperation equipment) and a pile of ICs. Everything else will be made on the Moon.
The nearly omnipresent dust layer is around 12% Alumina (Al2O3) – and lacking one key element to being two separate useful elements – a boatload of power. The only mining I would personally be doing for a very long time would be sending out autonomous sweepers.
Karl sez:
My view is that the only mining equipment launched from Earth will be a few starter machine shops (possibly completely teleoperated),
We’re a long ways from having a completely automated (or teleoperated) black box that can land somewhere and build a complete industrial infrastructure from scratch. Even Dennis Wingo acknowledges that.
The real startup requirements are going to be a lot greater than that. They won’t include 550 MT machines, but they will include a lot of smaller payloads — workers and their supplies (food, clothing, medicine, etc.), tools, replacement parts — all of which add up. Think ISS, on a larger scale (and with much higher transportation costs, if you’re still depending on expendable rockets). Much of that stuff can be made on the Moon eventually, but not from Day 1.
Al sez:
The nearly omnipresent dust layer is around 12% Alumina (Al2O3) – and lacking one key element to being two separate useful elements – a boatload of power. The only mining I would personally be doing for a very long time would be sending out autonomous sweepers.
That is not the kind of mining that Tom envisions. He wants to mine enough platinum to build electric cars for everyone on Earth, in order to Stop Global Warming. That’s a huge mining project.
Also, per Dennis Wingo, strip-mining the Moon is not PC. Everything has to be done in underground tunnels to avoid offending the environmentalists, which makes it even harder.
As I have said before, I really don’t care what NASA does
Obviously, that is not true, since you are whining about NASA spending a lot bit of money on suborbital science.
because NASA is irrelevant to the economic development of space. I could care less about Orion or Ares V. Personally if they keep NASA busy and out of their hair New Space should be glad.
That might be true, if the Bush Vision of Space Exploration really kept NASA out of anyone’s hair. In reality, it has led BVSE supporters (present company included) to attack New Space companies. Remember how you tried to blame the BVSE’s failures on Virgin Galactic, of all things?
New Space firms that are tying their fortune to COTS like contracts from NASA will regret it.
Who (besides from Elon Musk) is “tying their fortune to COTS”? Your setting up strawmen.
Yep the Crawler does weight 6 million pounds and was bought to the Cape in pieces. But there is a minimum size to the pieces you are able to break equipment down to and many will still be much bigger then its possible to land on the Moon with a EELV class vehicle.
You know not what you speak of. The late Dr. Max Hunter made a convincing argument that the largest piece of equipment that cannot be disassembled for shipment weighs hundreds of pounds — not hundreds of tons. If you believe otherwise, prove it. Name one piece of equipment that size which can’t be disassembled.
A sawbuck says you can’t do it.
There also is a huge difference between a space agency and a government corporation like the Alaska Railroad or Conrail. One is that they are able to be sold as entities to the private market if they become economically viable.
That’s nice, Tom. Have you talked to the president of Government Motors? If you can convince GM to give you a hundred billion dollars to mine the Moon for platinum to build electric-powered cars, then you’re in business. Why are you complaining to us?
As for space tourists and research mixing on flights, tell me how many researchers do you see doing experiments on your average Southwest Airlines flight? There is a reason you use different aircraft for research and for tourists.
Have you ever seen a research aircraft, Tom? They almost always have humans onboard to operate experiments. (UAVs are still a niche market, despite what you hear from their manufacturers.)
Just this morning, NASTAR Center put out a press release about a group of scientists training to be suborbital astronauts.
And I sat next to a government scientist on a Southwest flight just a few months ago. Southwest doesn’t really care who buys their tickets as long as they pay the fare.
Part of the confusion seems to come from your misuse of language. You insist on calling the human spaceflight industry “space tourism,” which would be okay except that you have the fixed idea that “tourist” refers only to rich millionaires on vacation.
Carl: I want the badass turbocharged 4.5L double overhead doohickey BMW 999i custom-pinstripe version that scares the piss out of our enemies.
While I substantually agree with you, if the question is one F22 or ten F35 I think I’d go with the ten (I hope I got the raptor and JSF designations right… swiss cheese memory at work.)
You know not what you speak of. The late Dr. Max Hunter made a convincing argument that the largest piece of equipment that cannot be disassembled for shipment weighs hundreds of pounds — not hundreds of tons. If you believe otherwise, prove it. Name one piece of equipment that size which can’t be disassembled.
How about two. Solid heat shields and sections of extremely large telescope mirrors (say 20+ meters in diameter). The former because nobody yet has a process for assembling heat shields in orbit (especially how to test the quality of such things). The latter would be extremely difficult just because of the number of components that need to be collimated. Having said that, I know of no other such equipment despite keeping an eye out for a few years now.
Well, I just thought of a third possibility though I’ve never heard of a need for it in near future projects. Large high pressure tanks (say used for a pressure fed propulsion system on a “big dumb rocket”) might be another thing.
Hi Ed,
Sorry for the delay, but I have been busy.
A modern mining haul truck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belaz_75600
http://www.belaz-export.com/pdf/75600_en.pdf
Mass is 260 tons empty.
Now these are designed to be broken into a 12-14 semi-truck loads, but remember an EELV isn’t able to place that much weight on the Moon. The best it could do I expect would be around what, 4,000 lbs. The tires alone weight 11, 000 lbs. So if you use the EELV it will take about 130 launches to place this on the Moon. Add in a team of mechanics to assembly it. A typical truck on Earth takes a half dozen mechanics about a month to assemble when broken into 14 semi-loads. How many days do you guess it will take them to assemble it when its in 130 payloads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_797
Now I know a 550 ton Sea Dragon seems huge to space advocates but actually it would probably only put the equivalent weight of a loaded semi-trailer on the lunar surface. That isn’t all that much. The DOT standard is 80,000 lbs, 40 tons. But of course you insist on building a mine using a pick-up truck….
But go visit some mining engineers. Tell them you want to start an open pit mine. But all the equipment must be broken into pieces small enough to fit in a pick-up for delivery to the site. They will enjoy the laughs….
As for that scientist on the Southwest Flight – was he taken readings of the magnetic field? Or measuring Solar Radiation? Or just flying as an ordinary tourist?
We’re a long ways from having a completely automated (or teleoperated) black box that can land somewhere and build a complete industrial infrastructure from scratch. Even Dennis Wingo acknowledges that.
And we’re a long ways from having mining infrastructure on the Moon. Reading Thomas’s last post, I really can’t see the point of launching extremely massive mining equipment to the Moon. Making it (at least the massive parts) on the Moon seems a far better way (especially since you’re already presupposing the existence of considerable infrastructure on the Moon).
It’s also worth noting that the truck in question is so massive because of Earth gravity. You probably could get away with a truck roughly a sixth as massive for the Moon simply because most of the truck’s mass is used to support the weight of the truck and its cargo. Given that the cargo now weighs a sixth as much, cuts the static structural load requirement by a factor of six (plus a bit since the structure is also part of the load) as well. The engine probably wouldn’t shrink by that much (you still need to move considerable mass in a timely manner), so the engine and anything that bears motive forces probably would need to stay large.
Now these are designed to be broken into a 12-14 semi-truck loads, but remember an EELV isn’t able to place that much weight on the Moon. The best it could do I expect would be around what, 4,000 lbs.
With orbital refueling, an EELV can send a lot more than 4,000 lbs. to lunar orbit. Delta IVH can launch over 58,000 pounds. (Payloads are much more likely to be the size of the lunar lander, which you’re overlooking.)
Furthermore, those 12-14 semi-truck loads are made up of smaller components, which can be disassembled if necessary.
The tires alone weight 11, 000 lbs.
11,00 lb. is well within the payload limit of an EELV. Also, those tires are built from cast rubber, plus reinforcing materials. You could launch rubber compound in any size package and cast the tires on the Moon, if necessary.
That assumes such a tire even makes sense on the Moon, which is doubtful. Instead of monster trucks, you should be looking at Paul’s Robotics, which won NASA’s lunar excavating challenge.
ut go visit some mining engineers. Tell them you want to start an open pit mine. But all the equipment must be broken into pieces small enough to fit in a pick-up for delivery to the site. They will enjoy the laughs.
If that’s true, they’re historically ignorant. Do you think no one ever did mining before 6,000,000-pound draglines existed?
Ask Pat Bahn about disruptive technology. He has a story about hydraulic excavators you ought to hear.
Or better yet, talk to Paul’s Robotics.
All of this, of course, begs the question you still haven’t answered. If colonizing the Moon/Mars/fill-in-your-favorite-planet requires the massive investment you say, why should we make that our immediate goal and ignore all the possible intermediate steps? Steps that would build up the space infrastructure we need to get there *and* generate intermediate revenues to help pay for it? Just “because it is hard”?
Reading Thomas’s last post, I really can’t see the point of launching extremely massive mining equipment to the Moon.
That’s just one of the questionable assumptions behind the “Moon rush.” The Moonies also assume that global warming is real *and* the only solution is to build fuel-cell cars *and* no one can design a fuel cell that doesn’t need platinum *and* it’s impossible to find more platinum on Earth *and* that environmentalists want a technological solution, rather than a politico-socio-economic solution.
That’s a pretty long chain of assumptions, but all of those things must be true to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies their plan requires. Furthermore, they must *convince* the politicians that all those things are true. That’s a tall order.
When humans return to the Moon, to stay, it will more likely be the result of incremental development rather than one “giant leap.”
If Moonies want to support some realistic steps toward lunar development, they could back the Lunar Lander Competition follow-on and the Jerrie Cobb Lunar Exploration Prize:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23375687/SFF-Prizes-Proposals
I doubt that many will. They’re too hung up on trying to emulate Von Braun and Kennedy.