…by a supposed “conservative.” Charles Krauthammer continues his (unusually, for him) ill-informed hysteria over the new space policy:
…the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.
This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It’s too expensive. It’s too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.
Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.
As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?
I just read that second paragraph, and shake my head in sorrow at the ignorance, not to mention the double standard. NASA has killed fourteen astronauts in the past quarter of a century. On what basis can he claim that private industry (which is highly motivated not to kill people, because it might put them out of business, whereas NASA is rewarded when it fails), will do worse?
And even ignoring their horrific cost, in what way are Ares and Orion “stepping stones” to anywhere, let alone Mars? No one has ever put forth a plausible scenario in which Orion is utilized for a Mars mission.
Meanwhile, a much more sensible piece can be found over at the Asia Times, which points out how ridiculous it is to worry about the Chinese (with quotes from Charles Lurio and Jeff Foust).
[Update a few minutes later]
Keith Cowing points out more historical ignorance on the part of the good doctor:
Um, check your facts next time. We had a 6 year gap between Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 and STS-1 in 1981. We had no way to send humans into space during that time. And, FWIW, between the end of Mercury and the beginning of Gemini, we had no access, and between Gemini 12 and Apollo 7 we had no access to space. Between STS-107 and STS-114 … and so on. Gaps are not a new thing.
And a continuation of the Program of Record would have guaranteed that the upcoming one would be the longest yet.
[Morning update]
Krauthammer link is fixed now, sorry.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jeff Foust has a report on Lori Garver’s speech at the FAA meeting yesterday. It won’t satisfy the die-hard Apollo/Ares huggers of course, but it should appeal to more sensible people, including conservatives.
Kurt9 is correct to point out that Krauthammer is not merely a conservative, but an older generation neoconservative, and thus not much inclined to be against a socialist government policy. Thomas Matula is also correct to point out that the soft power argument appeals to many conservatives, especially as a convenient means of Obama-bashing as communicated in rightwing popular media. Those sound bites fit the popular perception of Obama as wanting to weaken the United States. Obama is now poison, among conservatives and many independents, to any policy he promotes; he makes even good policies like the new NASA policy look bad.
However the soft power argument doesn’t appeal to informed paleoconservatives like John Derbyshire, who supports the new NASA policy based on the observation that it is DoD satellites, not NASA astronauts, that provide hard power in space. The soft power “vision thing” is not nearly as important as the hard power. NASA support for EELV or equivalent alternatives like Falcon strengthens our infrastructure for launching military spacecraft and thus increases our hard power, whereas diverting funds from these unmanned systems to NASA astronauts decreases our hard power. Hard power trumps soft power so the new policy wins among informed conservatives. I suspect for this reason that U.S. generals also mostly support the new policy, and getting vocal military support is key to winning over conservatives. Indeed, Obama’s policy would have gone over much better among conservatives if he had given the $billions for the in-space engine R&D and orbital depots to the DoD, showing how he really does want to promote American power in space, or just to fund some “anti-terrorist” satellites to track nuclear and biological proliferation. But then his own liberals would have screamed bloody murder. Ya can’t make everybody like you in politics. (Also, it’s admittedly hard to make political hay out of black budget items…)
I should add that another point Derbyshire suggests is that the GPS system and the mostly American-commerce-made communications satellites also provide substantial soft power to the U.S., and again these are strengthened by the new policy that encourages NASA to use standard-sized rockets instead of preposterously oversized rockets good only for launching astronauts. GPS in particular is a highly visible symbol of American technological power around the world. You can’t figure out where you’re going anymore without using U.S. military satellites!
Unfortunately, real space commerce using boring old unmanned satellites seems to be almost invisible to NewSpace people, whose view of space is oddly aligned with NASA fans’ astronaut-centric view. So it’s no wonder that NewSpace people can’t make an argument that appeals to hard-headed conservatives. Fortunately John Derbyshire has made it for them, if they care to understand and pick up on its points.
I think the analysis was correct: there are two branches of Statist Socialism and the one thing they usually agree on is state power. It may seem strange that the liberal side has lined up behind our cause, but I will take friends where I find them. Libertarians and most folk who really understand the history like Rand does are lining up behind the Obama program because it is precisely what we have been demanding for decades. If you were to read my postings in sci.space from 30 years ago you would see elements of the ideas expressed in the new NASA budget. The folk who are in there implementing are people many of us know and trust and who will do their damndest to do the right thing.
Damn the State! Full Speed Ahead!
> Robin Goodfellow Says:
> February 12th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
>
>==
> the utter failure of NASA to achieve the mission of opening up manned
> spaceflight. After a half century of efforts (a time-span that saw huge
> strides in aviation, automobiles, electronics, computers, even textiles)==
2 big points.
If NASA dramatically opens up space and lowers launch costs – they cut their own throat. Its not going to be “the space program” if theres a big commercial operation, nor will they please congress if their costs drop to far.
And Aviation and the rest advanced so fast because they had a huge transportation market they could easily get money from. Right now no one goes to space (no existing transportation demand to serve) and no one is sure why they would want to.
Right now no one goes to space (no existing transportation demand to serve) and no one is sure why they would want to.
I’ve no idea how you can know this. There is certainly no such uncertainty among the millions who want to.
Think of the old west. They lived off the land, but purchased vanity items from back east. This is why and how having many space colonies would work.
Robin,
[[[First, we must point to the utter failure of NASA to achieve the mission of opening up manned spaceflight.]]]
Please point to the part of NASA’s charter that makes this NASA’s job? It’s a line New Space advocates often use to justify NASA’s need to fund their firms, but that assumes NASA’s mission is the commercial development of space. But its culture, and the budget and policy set by Congress that last 50 years fails to support this claim.
And this statement:
[[[The seeds are there (at Virgin Galactic, at SpaceX, at XCOR, at Bigelow, and even at LM and Boeing), and once they no longer have to struggle against government subsidized competition there’s every reason to believe they will make great strides in little time.]]]
How has the existence of the Shuttle and Ares I, focused on meeting NASA’s exploration needs, stopped private firms from developing commercial vehicles for commercial markets? If they are not able to raise capital its not because of NASA “subsidies” to their competitors (because they are not competing with NASA’s mission) its because the commercial markets are unproved at the levels to justify the investment to develop their private launch systems. Or that their business models don’t close properly for venture capitalists.
It should also be noted that Virgin Galactic is doing fine in its pursuit of a pure capitalist approach to creating a private spacecraft for a private market. NASA funding the Shuttle and Ares I don’t appears to have restricted their fund raising.
Actually if you are worried about NASA subsidies competition to firms like Virgin Galactic, at SpaceX, at XCOR, Bigelow) you really have more to worry about now as the firm(s) that win the crew competition (probably some combination of Lockheed and Boeing) will, in theory, have an insurmountable advantage should they decide to enter the commercial market. But of course in practice it won’t matter as the product requirements for NASA commercial crew and true commercial markets will be so different it won’t matter. Its like saying the B1 bomber will be a subsidized competitor to firms proposing a supersonic business jet…
This is exactly the type of New Space rhetoric that makes folks roll their eyes…
Googaw,
The main problem with Derbyshire is that he sees little need for humans in space, so expect his arguments to be completely ignored by both sides.
Ken,
Space settlers will have enough need of essentials from Earth to not worry about the luxury goods. The problem they will have is developing products that will be able to compete with Earth produced goods at a level that will enable them to buy the essentials they will need while paying off the capital costs of building space settlements. So the problem to be solved for space settlement is not upmass trade, its the downmass trade.
What is needed is to find the space equivalent of Beaver Pelts to get it going.
Lunar PGMs looks like the best bet at the moment, something I strongly agree with Dennis Wingo on.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 8:58 am
>> Right now no one goes to space (no existing transportation demand
>> to serve) and no one is sure why they would want to.
> I’ve no idea how you can know this. There is certainly no such
> uncertainty among the millions who want to.
Thats not many, and none are coming up with big industrial uses or huge contracts to do anything. Mainly you have millions saying they might like to go to space, maybe – but its not like they can outline busness plans to investors about it.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 9:04 am
>
> Think of the old west. They lived off the land, but purchased vanity
> items from back east. This is why and how having many space
> colonies would work.
No, this is one of the big myths of spaceflight. Space isn’t like the west, and even the west wasn’t like the west of myth. Space has damn near nothing to live off of – and its going to be impossible to unaffordable to not get most things from Earth.
Like al colonies or settlments out west – the big issue is what can you do there to pay your way.
The US west (and everywhere else) had towns settled for various religious, social organization, etc things they wanted to found. About none lasted to the founders grandchildren. Folks go where they can see a way to make opportunity – i.e. money.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
>
>==
> What is needed is to find the space equivalent of Beaver Pelts to get it going.
Big agree.
> Lunar PGMs looks like the best bet at the moment, something I
> strongly agree with Dennis Wingo on.
PGMs?
What is needed is to find the space equivalent of Beaver Pelts to get it going.
Suppose their are no pelts? Do we then abandon the idea of becoming a space faring world? What gets us serious about space then?
Space needs a champion with both money and desire. The reason I so strongly advocate colonies is it’s the only thing that involves an investment that’s not easy to abandon (it could be, but it’s much harder than other options.)
Do we need to be hit by a big rock so we can then get serious and say, ‘never again?’
I want to see colonies everywhere they can be, but I strongly suggest that Mars is the most Earth-like environment to give a colony the best chance of success. They have water and near 24 hr. sunlight. 0.38g is about as good as it gets. They have metal and mineral and we can make fuel. No matter where we start colonies does anybody deny that Mars will become the second largest population after the Earth?
Martians can live and grow without any help from Earth once they get started, but they will need industry and labor for as far as we can see into the future. This is a driver of markets. Then you will discover pelts that didn’t exist at all before.
Martians will build their own rockets (a branch of SpaceX-Mars no doubt.) They will then show the Earth how space exploration is done. The Earth will then really have an incentive to make access cheap (but will never catch up with the off world industries.) Then we can start talking about there being no pelts in Centauri.
1) Space isn’t like the west… Space has damn near nothing to live off of
2) its going to be impossible to unaffordable to not get most things from Earth.
I mostly agree with your second point. Any plan for opening space must not depend on the Earth supplying it beyond essential startup items.
Space is mostly vacuum and radiation with scattered rocks. This is why it’s important to start in a place that already has all the resources you need to survive within walking distance. That’s Mars.
Everything required for life exists on Mars. All they need are chemists and engineers with the knowledge to start industry. They will post great comments here with experience to back them up. The sooner the better.
Please point to the part of NASA’s charter that makes this NASA’s job? It’s a line New Space advocates often use to justify NASA’s need to fund their firms, but that assumes NASA’s mission is the commercial development of space.
From the National Aeronautics and Space Act:
The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
Folks go where they can see a way to make opportunity – i.e. money.
I like the way you said that, it’s not all about money but money is important. Starting out, a colony may not export anything but that doesn’t mean they will have no wealth. Survival and growth will mostly generate an internal economy. Export will happen when it happens, they don’t need it for initial growth. As a programmer I can work on Mars and make a good income as easily as anywhere else. I just need a way to transmit information. Software may be one of its earliest exports (consider how many new space companies were founded by software people.)
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
>> What is needed is to find the space equivalent of Beaver Pelts to get it going.
> Suppose their are no pelts? Do we then abandon the idea of
> becoming a space faring world? ==
We don’t go places and live there just to go there. We have to see some practical value.
>==The reason I so strongly advocate colonies is it’s the only thing
> that involves an investment that’s not easy to abandon==
Again. We don’t found – or keep runing colonies, towns, etc just to go there.
>== I strongly suggest that Mars is the most Earth-like environment
> to give a colony the best chance of success. They have water and
> near 24 hr. sunlight. 0.38g is about as good as it gets.==
High radiation, grav to low to be healthy but high enough to be a bear to land on, hard to get to raw material. Its not really a great place to set up a long term stay at.
They have metal and mineral and we can make fuel. No matter where we start colonies does anybody deny that Mars will become the second largest population after the Earth?
> Martians can live and grow without any help from Earth once
> they get started, but they will need industry and labor for as
> far as we can see into the future. This is a driver of markets.==
Again. Without huge cash and supplies from Earth the colony can’t survive long — so what would it do to pay for that? Otherwise folks will get bored with it and pull the plug.
You want to colonize space – figure out how to sell it to investors.
Whether all of this is justified or even constitutional is another matter of course.
Martijn,
[[[“seek and encourage” ” to the maximum extent possible”]]]
The problem with vague statements like that is they lead to misinterpretation of them. You also need to look at how the agency interprets it and how Congressional budgets implement it.
What it does not mean, based on how it has been interpreted, is they are required to fund its development. I also note they are not organized as an investment bank, nor a economic development authority which is what you would expect if that was interpreted as most New Space advocates believe it is.
Also if this is NASA’s core mission they would focus on it in their planning. Most of their planning, and culture, focuses on science and science based exploration. So it again doesn’t appear NASA interprets that line the way New Space advocates do. And it doesn’t appear Congress is holding their feet to the fire to do so and so by implication goes along with NASA interpretation.
So it seems Congress is fine enough with commercial spin-offs and NASA Act agreements to use NASA resources. Which means that its not a mandate to fill the sky with space travelers. And I don’t see the new policy changing this view to any great extent. Nor NASA culture changing into a space development agency.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
>> 1) Space isn’t like the west… Space has damn near nothing to live off of
>>
>> 2) its going to be impossible to unaffordable to not get most things from Earth.
> I mostly agree with your second point. Any plan for opening
> space must not depend on the Earth supplying it beyond
> essential startup items.
>
> Space is mostly vacuum and radiation with scattered rocks.
> This is why it’s important to start in a place that already has
> all the resources you need to survive within walking distance. That’s Mars.
Its harder to find and recover resources on Mars then drifting in space, and its harder to provide shielding and gravity.
Eiather way, you don’t live off the land in space. You live in artificial space ships and colonies. Those are high tech products. Its like living off the land and maintaining you submarine or airliner off of materials around you.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
>> Folks go where they can see a way to make opportunity – i.e. money.
> I like the way you said that, it’s not all about money but money
> is important. Starting out, a colony may not export anything
> but that doesn’t mean they will have no wealth. ==
It does to the folks back home you owe money to, and are trying to buy supplies from. You don’t pay the bills – or have a damn huge rich uncle picking up the billions (tens of billions?) a year in support costs – you pack up and go back to Earth real quick.
>==Survival and growth will mostly generate an internal economy.==
Internal is irrelevant to the survival of the colony.
>== As a programmer I can work on Mars and make a good income
> as easily as anywhere else. =
No, you couldn’t compete with programs on Earth. You can’t meet with or telecon with customers on Earth, and your cost of living is insane, so you need to charge far more to break even and pay your bills.
Kelly,
PGMs = Platinum Group Metals
Dennis Wingo wrote a great book about their potential called “Moon Rush”. He is also working with NASA Ames to look for deposits of them on the Moon by helping to restore the old Lunar Orbital photos.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/LOIRP/
We don’t go places and live there just to go there. We have to see some practical value.
The practical value is that it is a frontier that can be developed and it will give us options we don’t currently have. What good is a new born baby?
The value is that we will NEVER be a space faring species without colonies. NEVER. We just stay in the cradle. Ok, yer right… we should have just stayed in Africa.
We don’t found – or keep running colonies, towns, etc just to go there.
Not usually, but long term getting colonies started now will have huge future benefits.
High radiation, grav to low to be healthy but high enough to be a bear to land on, hard to get to raw material. Its not really a great place to set up a long term stay at.
Those are called challenges. So space is too hard?
Without huge cash and supplies from Earth the colony can’t survive long — so what would it do to pay for that? Otherwise folks will get bored with it and pull the plug.
They will need startup supplies, but not forever. They will learn they forgot to take everything they need, but they can fix that. Some will die. Actually, all will die eventually, just like on Earth. But humans breed. Parents will make a better life for their children, who will then run off to that cool new town on the moons of Saturn.
You want to colonize space – figure out how to sell it to investors.
Advertisers persuade in many ways. We may just have to wait for that big rock to hit before enough people think seriously about how fragile life is on just one rock. Or someone with the resources will do it for themselves and their children.
Its harder to find and recover resources on Mars then drifting in space, and its harder to provide shielding and gravity.
Gravity is already provided. You just have to live with 0.38g. Shielding on a planet is easy… it’s called dirt. It hard to find resources anywhere, but at least Mars has the resources. Fast rovers (no time lag) and satellites will make that easier.
It does to the folks back home you owe money to, and are trying to buy supplies from. You don’t pay the bills – or have a damn huge rich uncle picking up the billions (tens of billions?) a year in support costs – you pack up and go back to Earth real quick.
Yes it will cost money to get started. It doesn’t have to be borrowed money. Once on Mars however, it will only cost sweat. Martians will make deals with new colonists (who mostly pay their own way) to bring whatever they are missing (which will not be as much as you think.)
Another thing. Free enterprise can grow on Mars. On a space ship only the captain gets to make decisions. Not much room for the crew to go off and do it’s own thing. Mars means freedom.
Ken,
[[[Suppose their are no pelts? Do we then abandon the idea of becoming a space faring world? What gets us serious about space then?]]]
They you don’t have space commerce, space settlements or a viable human econsphere beyond Earth. What you have are outposts that are depended on the charity of Earth and the policies of different space agencies. And this includes Mars which, because of its vast distance from Earth, will have a much higher barrier for achieving self sufficiency then does the Moon.
Thomas, there are more than two sides to this issue. If you look at it as NewSpace vs. traditional NASA fans, obviously the traditional NASA fans would win. But that’s like asking Hollywood about California policy and forgetting about Silicon Valley and the farmers. There are many more players that play a far more important role in the many parts of our space programs that actually accomplish useful things. There are plenty of hard-headed people in real commercial space (satellites), the Pentagon, and planetary science who favor the new policy because they recognize the value of automated spacecraft and how Constellation was stealing from those unmanned systems and from launchers suitable for useful satellites.
There are also more than a few laymen on the conservative and liberal sides who agree with the hard-headed faction of space and realize that astronauts cost far more than they’re worth. They are a romantic luxury that we can no longer afford except for low-cost flights to the sunk-cost ISS. Hard-headed conservatives like Derbyshire agree that astronaut funding helps jeopardize our shaky finances and weaken our hard power. Obama also saw canceling the frivolous Constellation as a highly visible way to placate our nervous creditors, even as he really increased the NASA budget to try to placate the noisy NASA workers and NASA fans. It didn’t placate many of them because they also are unable to look past the romantic facade of the astronauts. NewSpace doesn’t make Derbyshire’s otherwise popular and correct argument because they are only mildly reformed NASA astronaut fans, non the NASA-bashers they like to come across as. All State funding to Space-X and Blue Oriin for “privatized” astronauts! We’re so libertarian to want NASA to fund our guys instead their guys, with an increased budget as further gravy, huzzah!
Did all the colonies in the new world send gold back to the old? No, they didn’t. I would assert that living off the land will work the same way in the new new world. Will it be hard? Yes. Is it possible? Yes.
Is it worth doing? Only if we want the universe. Otherwise, no… stay home. Nothing to see here.
Is it worth doing? We shall see if someone does it.
Ken,
[[[Advertisers persuade in many ways.]]]
Advertising is based on communicating value exchanges. What is the value exchange for Mars Settlements? What will justify the cost of sending settlers there?
[[[The value is that we will NEVER be a space faring species without colonies. NEVER. We just stay in the cradle. Ok, yer right… we should have just stayed in Africa.]]]
Humans moved out of Africa because they were following resources. In short the effort to live in areas that were not hunted out were less then areas that were. So you could support your family easier and have a larger one. That was the economics of is and so it was economic driven.
All human expansion is at its root economic. Even the Pilgrims and Mormon migrations were, the biased against them in their original communities made earning a living nearly impossible. Its hard to farm when someone who dislikes you may kill you and take your property at anytime with immunity, or the government may seize it.
In space resources are hard to come by and take a lot of technology to develop, not to mention getting your equipment there, so you need a real economic advantage to establish settlements. Just wanting to do it isn’t enough. You have to make it pay. Or be willing to depend on the whims of a government on Earth that may change its space policy with each administration.
This is the problem with Dr. Zubrin’s ideas for Mars, there is no economic model to justify it. There is nothing on Mars that is unique enough to justify the high cost of its economic development and create a demand for a space settlement. So Mars Direct is just an outpost that would survive at the mercy of resources provided by Earth.
You claim you could make money as a computer programer selling programs to Earth. How good would your programs be if your computer is years older then new ones on Earth? And upgrading it would require a 1 year wait for shipping plus a million dollars or so to cover freight charges? You would quickly be left behind the technology curve in your profession…
Mars which, because of its vast distance from Earth, will have a much higher barrier for achieving self sufficiency then does the Moon.
Just the opposite. Martians will have a much greater incentive for self sufficiency. Where Lunatics will look to the Earth for supplies, Martians will look to themselves. After a slower start, Mars will grow much faster. Independence will do the trick better than anything else.
Thomas Matula, while you make good points you do not seem to be considering individual freedom. The economic model that justifies it is that it is a new world. It just needs a start.
Yes, it must pay. It will pay. This is what humans do.
How good would your programs be if your computer is years older then new ones on Earth?
My programs are great. Most are over a decade old these days. It’s not the computer, it’s the programmer. Besides, until Mars has it’s new foundries, it shouldn’t cost too much to have new arrivals bring a few kg. of the good stuff with them from Earth. Expect colonists to arrive in a pretty steady stream for hundreds of years. CPUs are easy. Bulldozers are hard. But then, Martians will soon be making those locally.
Ken,
[[[Did all the colonies in the new world send gold back to the old? No, they didn’t. ]]]
Nope. Some sold Tobacco, Sugar, Cotton, Indigo. Old growth timber made ship building a big industry. At one point nearly a third of the British Merchant Marine was built in its American colonies, as well as a good portion of their warships. Tar was another major export, especially from North Carolina (the Tar Heel State…). Cod was a major export from the New England states. And of course the fur trade.
But ALL the New World colonies did repaid their Old Word investors with the value of the export goods generated.
BTW the only export good from the Norse Greenland colony was Greenland Falcons, which is why it took a while for anyone to notice they disappeared, or care about it….
Ken, you are an illustration of one of the weakness of the education system even at the college level, and that is so much history is taught from the perspective of politics, focusing on wars and national leaders, while completely ignoring the economics and commerce that was the real driver behind it and shaping it. As a result people get a distorted view of the world and how we got here.
Most people see the American Revolution as a war for liberty, but don’t understand that it was really a war to get rid of the English trade restrictions on the colonies and the tight control London placed on their trade opportunities and ability to develop new resources. In short the drive to freedom was not just for personal liberty, but even more for economic liberty.
That is why it started with the ransacking of a British East Indies ship carrying Tea they were forced to import from England at a high tariff – the famous Boston Tea Party. It was also why so many farm owners, merchants and plantation owners were leaders in the revolution. They were fed up with the English banks and Royal government exploiting them in unfair trade arrangements and taxes….
So why do you expect space settlement will follow a pattern different from the one that has govern human economics for thousands of years?
Besides, until Mars has it’s new foundries, it shouldn’t cost too much to have new arrivals bring a few kg.
Getting just one kilogram to the surface of Mars costs over $200,000. That’s several times the annual salary of the average programmer. (Cue to argument about how Space-X, whose costs keep rising every time they blow up another rocket, is going to magically reduce these costs by orders of magnitude!)
Ken,
[[[Bulldozers are hard. But then, Martians will soon be making those locally.]]]
Do you have any idea of the Supply Chain required to make a bulldozer??? Or to build a foundry for high quality steel? Not to mention the stamping mills, wire production, and rubber for gaskets and seals….
btw, if I sell software from Mars to the Earth the software will be running on those fast new Earth computers. In most cases, I don’t need the latest computer to take advantage of the latest and greatest. There are always limitations a programmer has to work within.
In the 1980’s I updated a full screen application in Ohio using edlin in NY. I could only do that because I was young and had the whole program (10k to 20k lines) in my mind. I also worked with an assembly language programmer that worked in one of the twin towers. He was amazing… and blind.
Do you have any idea of the Supply Chain required to make a bulldozer??? Or to build a foundry for high quality steel? Not to mention the stamping mills, wire production, and rubber for gaskets and seals….
Yes. I was born in Brooklyn. You’d be amazed at the manufacturing that goes on in that town.
I absolutely agree with you Thomas that economics is the major driving factor of human activity. I just think you are being a little short sighted if you’ll pardon my saying because where people go, economic activity goes as well. I’m asserting that once people make it possible for people to live on Mars and get there, economic activity and profit will be the result.
It is a seed that will bare fruit after a season of time. More than either you or I can imagine. Those that go probably shouldn’t go into debt to do it. That leave me out but others would have the resource to go. Especially once the infrastructure is in place so the ticket price is known.
The first bulldozer they build might not be pretty. But it will work and lead to other equipment. The first tools will be primitive, but they will get better. They will get the job done until better comes around. Ever seen a barn in the midwest. They have tractors with no rubber that look like they’re driven by steam. They use them.
What happened to my posts today? What did I say wrong?
So why do you expect space settlement will follow a pattern different from the one that has govern human economics for thousands of years?
I do not. When I said gold it was just shorthand for sugar and tobacco and wood, etc. Debt must be paid. Just don’t assume that everyone going to the new world is a slave to the old. They weren’t. They will not be.
Economics provide the best insight into human activity. It just isn’t the only insight.
Ken, you are an illustration of one of the weakness of the education system
I’ll try not to feel insulted. 😉 Mainly because I agree with you. Lot’s of reading is our only defense.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
>
>Kelly,>
>
> PGMs = Platinum Group Metals
Ah.
Course if you recover a lot – the market price drops like mad — adn given the high recovery adn transport costs of small amounts – you’ld be hard pressed to make any money?
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
>>We don’t go places and live there just to go there. We have to see some practical value.
> The practical value is that it is a frontier that can be developed and it will
> give us options we don’t currently have.
Sorry. Doesn’t work that way. There are lots of frounteers we could colonize and don’t. Hell their are abandoned cities in the US that died when their economic justification died.
> What good is a new born baby?
Until you can answer – don’t expect me to put it on the payroll.
Every place we settled, we settled because it profited us to do so.
> > We don’t found – or keep running colonies, towns, etc just to go there.
> Not usually, but long term getting colonies started now will have huge future benefits.
We can go other places and have huge benefits now. When you can define the benefits, and the return on investment isnear enough term – then folks with money will be interested.
>> High radiation, grav to low to be healthy but high enough to be a bear to land
>> on, hard to get to raw material. Its not really a great place to set up a long term stay at.
> Those are called challenges. So space is too hard?
Those are called lethal. So you want people to go to a place where they will be dependant on charity from earth, they’ll get sick, die young, or just go broke unless the colony is scraped out first?
>=They will need startup supplies, but not forever. =
We can’t make nations on Earth self suficent. nOt a chance of doing it on a high tech, low populations, colony in space with extream lacks of infastructure.
>== But humans breed. Parents will make a better life for their children, ==
Which is a damn good reason for them to not got to your colny with no opportunities you can think of, and highly dependant on charity from Earth.
> ken anthony Says:
>February 13th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
>> Its harder to find and recover resources on Mars then drifting
>> in space, and its harder to provide shielding and gravity.
> Gravity is already provided. You just have to live with 0.38g.
Humans don’t work that way.
> Shielding on a planet is easy… it’s called dirt.
A little hard to carry around on your cars and such.
> It hard to find resources anywhere, but at least Mars has the
> resources.
Sorry, no, resources on Mars are no where near as rich adn pure as in space. Many of the riches mines on Earth are from astroid impacts.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
> Another thing. Free enterprise can grow on Mars. On a space
> ship only the captain gets to make decisions. ==
Its still a space ship if its in space, or on the ground on Mars. You still die away from it.
As to the gov organization, that’s as flexible on a ship as off – but likely you do what the folks paying for your stay say.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
> Did all the colonies in the new world send gold back to the old? ==
All the successful ones that survived and developed did.
> Is it worth doing? Only if we want the universe.==
If you can’t even figure out how your first colony will survive, your in no shape to even think about spreading through the universe.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
> Thomas Matula, while you make good points ==
Yes he does.
>==you do not seem to be considering individual freedom.
> The economic model that justifies it is that it is a new world.
> It just needs a start.
Thousands of ghost towns were founded with similar happy buzz words with nothing solid behind them. The web is full of site where folks use the same logic adn words to support colonizing the ocean, the deseart, abandoned cities, etc
If you want to colonize a place adn expend humanity into space — you need to make it pay. Dreams of civilizations spawning from yours are no basis. Using those dreams as a justification just tells folks your idea isn’t worth doing.
> Thomas Matula Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
> Ken,
>> [[[Bulldozers are hard. But then, Martians will soon be making those locally.]]]
> Do you have any idea of the Supply Chain required to make a bulldozer???
Obviously not — but then he doesn’t have a clue about what suply chain it takes to keep a city running eiather.
> == Or to build a foundry for high quality steel?
I think he was refering to a chip foundary.
Yeah, that makes it worse.
>Not to mention the stamping mills, wire production, and rubber for gaskets and seals….
Hell, just making a pencil take infastructure way beyond most nations n Earth.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 13th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
> I absolutely agree with you Thomas that economics is the major
> driving factor of human activity. I just think you are being a little
> short sighted if you’ll pardon my saying because where people go,
> economic activity goes as well. ==
No Ken, economiy doesn’t go where people go. all those ghost towns adn abandoned cities show that.
People go where the economics goes. Thats why the big question of space colonization is to find the economics that will bring and support people. Without it people cannot go there. No colony can survive there.
Find and follow the economics.
There are lots of frontiers we could colonize and don’t.
Absolutely correct. If I could tell you explicitly and exactly how to profit from going to Mars we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We’d be too busy going.
Columbus, a fellow Italian and known flim-flam artist, convinced Isabella to finance his spice run, even though most in the know at the time knew the Earth to be bigger than he told the Queen. He was looking for spice, but found other economic incentives to send back to the queen.
Serendipity is our real history. Still it took hundreds of years for others to follow because people without money had to convince people with money to pay for the trip. Imagine if they didn’t wait so long. A whole different history. Probably wouldn’t be any America and it’s constitution. Spain might still be a (the?) world power.
Its still a space ship if its in space, or on the ground on Mars. You still die away from it.
No you don’t (well some do.) You have resource to build more habitats on Mars. The whole point is you can leave the ship, expand and survive and grow. It’s low tech on Mars. It’s mostly high tech drifting in space.
Humans don’t work that way
It remains to be seen if we can adapt to 0.38g.
A little hard to carry around on your cars and such.
Beep. Wrong again. Thank you for playing. Again, the whole point is you have access to the material to make shielding… all. in. walking. distance. Although I agree mostly you’d drive. You don’t just pile dirt on the roof of your cars. You use energy to process it into the materials you need. You start small and grow. Think of all the businesses that started in a garage and now consist of big glass towers in major cities.
Sorry, no, resources on Mars are no where near as rich and pure as in space. Many of the riches mines on Earth are from asteroid impacts.
Asteroids hit Mars as well.
Every place we settled, we settled because it profited us to do so.
You make it sound like a simple equation. It’s not quite that simple. Plus I must repeat… it will profit us. More than Columbus. How can I say that? Because it opens up greater opportunities than we currently have. It is with absolute certainty the most profitable venture the human race with ever embark on. It may not be realized for a few hundred years, but afterward anybody arguing the opposite is going to look pretty foolish.
And that includes losing the first few colonies, if we or others do.
We can go other places and have huge benefits now. When you can define the benefits, and the return on investment is near enough term – then folks with money will be interested.
I agree we go places because of benefits. Our disagreement is whether Mars has any benefits. I’m not alone in saying it does. Looking for a specific item of benefit is short sighted. The benefits are not so limited. The benefits are actually mind boggling which makes it difficult to see how anyone could not see them.
A branch of humanity on Mars will have a huge economic advantage over the Earth in developing solar resources because of their lower gravity. An orbital community will be limited in population growth needed for industry. Being a planet they have local access to the resources needed to develop industry including human resources. They will out-breed space colonies.
Its not really a great place to set up a long term stay at.
No. It’s just better than any other place. If you say we shouldn’t leave the Earth at all, I just have to disagree.
Suppose their are no pelts… EVER. We should still do it. Not to profit the Earth, but to profit humanity. The people that go will profit and so will there decedents. Somebody will finance it.
But since we’ve invented that thing called a stock market… It’s impossible for a successful space venture to not profit the Earth. Even if it’s not based on the Earth or have any assets on it.
Those are called lethal. So you want people to go to a place where they will be dependant on charity from earth, they’ll get sick, die young, or just go broke unless the colony is scraped out first?
SD in the winter is lethal. They will not be dependent on charity from the Earth. Some will die young. Others will live to an old age. The unofficial state motto of the Dakotas? Forty below keeps out the riff-raff. I expect the Martians will be even more fiercely independent. This would be a good thing for humanity.
Kelly,
[[[Course if you recover a lot – the market price drops like mad — adn given the high recovery adn transport costs of small amounts – you’ld be hard pressed to make any money?]]]
Self correcting. When prices fall below cost, mining and shipments stop, prices then go up. Key will be ability of PGMs from Earth being able to compete. If there are none then the costs of lunar mining will place a floor on PGM prices. Since so far the main resources we know come from ancient NEO impacts and are limited it difficult to see Earth mining keep up long term. NEOs are likely to be competitive to the Moon long term, but the time lag will make robotic mining difficult short term.
Also once you have a resource there is a tendency for value added process to locate near the source. Boeing located in Seattle because big trees made big wooden planes. When the Bonnieville Power Authority attracted Aluminum production Boeing led the switch to Aluminum in aircraft use. Similar value added process will be found for lunar materials.
Being a short distance uphill from the biggest market in the Solar System will be why the Moon will be industrialized first, and will be the first to achieve economic self sufficiency.
> Do you have any idea of the Supply Chain required to make a bulldozer???
Obviously not — but then he doesn’t have a clue about what suply chain it takes to keep a city running eiather.
No need to be insulting. I actually worked with material engineers in many of my jobs. You don’t start with a full blown foundry (of any kind.) It all starts with the engineer. He figures out how to do something. Others make it better.
What is a supply chain? It’s business people serving a need. Actually, it’s those people you are insulting. Do you really feel so elite? My field as a programmer includes manufacturing, engineering, accounting, etc. In other words: business. My wife is an MBA and I help her with her homework. I’ve been professionally involved in these issues for decades.
If the economic incentive were obvious… again, we would not be discussing it here. It’s not so obvious. Please look in the mirror before assuming I’m the ignorant one. You don’t need to be making such personal remarks. We can stick with the relevant issues.
A colony could easily die on the vine. Or it could lead to the greatest economic expansion this world has ever seen. My guilt is I can’t see how expansion into the solar system could not lead to an expansion of the economy. But I could be wrong and you could be right and we never go much beyond orbit.