OK, so I read this essay by Lou Friedman, and what’s obvious to me, and completely not so to him, is the reason that he and others have made so little headway in selling human space flight. It’s because they continue to use the wrong reason. He uses the word “exploration” a dozen times, by my count. Not once does he use the words “development,” “exploitation,” “colonization,” “settlement.” Once you agree that the purpose of human spaceflight is mere exploration as an end, and not as a means, you completely cede the rhetorical field to the robots, as he points out himself:
Unlike in the 1980s, the lack of new accomplishments in human exploration will be paralleled by the greater accomplishments in robotic exploration. And the danger is that the public will join those politicians who say, “Save money, let the robots do it.”
Hey, if all we’re doing is “exploring,” then count me in with the robots, at least if we’re going to insist on doing human exploration the way we did it in the sixties, and the way that many insist that we continue to do so, including Lou himself:
…we can’t even seem to develop the rockets to take us beyond what we achieved four decades ago.
Lou, if you want to see humans go beyond earth orbit for any purpose at all, including exploration, go write on the board five hundred times, “We don’t need new rockets.”
[Update a few minutes later]
One other amusing point:
Looking at the political history of US human space flight decisions, the only two positive ones were based on international (or more precisely, geopolitical) considerations. They were Kennedy’s decision to take on the Soviets in a race to the Moon, and Clinton’s decision to engage the Russians in the International Space Station. (The shuttle decision by Nixon resulted in a flight program, to be sure, but was a negative decision to ratchet back space objectives and not let NASA build a space station or go beyond Earth orbit). It is also worthwhile to note that neither of these Presidents was interested in space science or exploration.
While it’s true, he writes this as though there has ever been a president interested in space science or exploration. There never has been, and there likely (barring some weird political accident) never will be. The kinds of people interested in those things are unlikely to become president. The closest politician I can think of with that kind of interest, with the slightest chance of becoming president, is Newt Gingrich. And he’s not actually particularly interested in space science or exploration. What he’s interested in is…wait for it…space development.
I think the strong emotional appeal of the subject tends to cloud judgment.
I am not sure if there is actually that much emotion involved – not many people are that immediately vested (NASA employees excepted).
It is a problem not immediately answered by reality, it requires a little thinking through, a little extrapolation, as a consequence there is some diversity in the conclusions people come to. However I have noticed a general convergence in people’s thinking over time. People often start out with an interest in exploration, Mars, the Moon, and what not, but over time their thinking often seems to evolve towards general space settlement (away from planetary chauvinism).
Like many others I do not want people poisoning the well with blatantly dumb ideas, but an open market can sort this out. There is actually a general consensus view on what needs to be done to open up space, and it generally involves letting the market do its thing. It would be nice if governments could help develop this industry, however US government interference of late has generally been destructive – and this deservedly enough invokes considerable emotion.
I should perhaps note that the vast majority of human migrations in the past while economically motivated did so without a business model for selling products back to the place that they came from.
You might also have noted that all human migrations in the past involved moving into a well developed biosphere that could be exploited.
You might also have noted that all human migrations in the past involved moving into places where survival was possible with no more than stone age technology and often not even that.
Human history has consisted of one desperate migration after another, most but fortunately not all ending in death. It would be highly presumptuous to assume that survival model no longer necessary.
The survival model consisted of migrating to places well adapted to supporting those migrating. You could always tell such places by the species already occupying them.
Not a model that can be easily applied to space. Unfortunately.
I am not sure if there is actually that much emotion involved…
You couldn’t prove this by me. I’ve been called a collectivist on this very forum for even suggesting that the Outer Space Treaty hasn’t impeded space settlement. I’ve been called a Luddite for suggesting that RLVs are beyond the current state of the art. Rand Simberg and Mark Whittington can hardly mention each other’s name without gratuitous insults tossed in. Ditto Ed Wright and Dennis Wingo. Or Ed Wright and Thomas Matula. Space advocacy is a field noted for the amount of venom that gets tossed around. This is a constant theme on David Livingston’s Space Show. Rand Simberg has even invented a religious ceremony (evoloterra?) that celebrates the Apollo 11 moon landing. There are powerful emotional currents in this field.
There is actually a general consensus view on what needs to be done to open up space, and it generally involves letting the market do its thing.
Not quite. I would guess that the number of space advocates that would even entertain the notion that the market might decide that space settlement might one day take its place along with other ideas that didn’t pan out is very small.
I am fairly confident that humanity has risen above its hunter gather phase and no longer requires stone age compatible environments – Antarctica being but one example. The proportion of people who have died in space is minuscule compared to many historical migrations/adventures. By that measure space settlement has shown itself to be fairly safe and doable, although self sufficiency is still some way off.
While we all have our favored approaches I would not think myself against any viable plan for space settlement which had reasonable economics. Admittedly I do not see that a HLV will be economically viable until a lot more basic design and development work has been done and a market sufficient for many flights per day arises.
Finally someone has said it. Exploration isn’t what we should do, its colonization.
Why isn’t “none of the above” an option?
I’ve been called a Luddite for suggesting that RLVs are beyond the current state of the art.
What makes you think they are?
Karl, I’m sorry but you have to explain this more. What “data” will a human space colony return to earth that will justify the titanic expense of keeping them alive?
Is it scientific data?
Is it data relay? (in which case what purpose do the people serve?)
What is it?
Because you all can’t seem to describe a physical commodity that will be returned to earth profitably, and keep reverting to the “self-licking-ice-cream-cone” scenario of using space resources in space to do other space things.
You appeal to freedom as a reason for space colonization when there’s plenty of freedom here. The best freedom on Earth the freedom from sudden, immediate, and certain death in 90% of the places on the surface of the Earth. Can’t say that about space.
What “data” will a human space colony return to earth that will justify the titanic expense of keeping them alive?
The titanic expense is a strong function of commercial launch prices. If those are reduced substantially all sorts of things could become profitable. Including scientific data, which certainly has value. As soon as research institutions start willingly spending their budget on buying data from the moon, that will tell you what the value is.
You appeal to freedom as a reason for space colonization when there’s plenty of freedom here. The best freedom on Earth the freedom from sudden, immediate, and certain death in 90% of the places on the surface of the Earth.
No, the BEST freedom would include lifetime free health care. And free food. And a free big-screen TV. Oh, and twinkies. Lots and lots of those too. Free.
Lots of work ahead I’m afraid.
10% of the global GDP for a thousand years to germinate the equivalent of another Earth full of people off planet (with Earth level GDP) would be an exceptionally good economic investment by historical standards.
@Paul D: Why do you say that mining thorium in space for use in space makes no sense at all? If you can use it to refuel a PBR on hand in a Lunar colony or base, it would seem to be sensible to save the costs of hauling the thorium up from Earth by refining it there, making the pebbles and using it there. I recognize the technical engineering issues hidden in the simple words and phrases “mining”, “refining” and “making the pebbles” and that those issues require new solutions from the solutions we use here on Earth. But there are solutions which will work in Luna as well as here.
And “none of the above” is always an option for each of us. For my part, I do not advocate another government space program nor any government funding of private space operations. Wastes money better spent on something the taxpayers it was taken from would like to do.
@ Pete: The “global GDP” isn’t mine or yours to use as we wish, it rightly belongs to the men and women who produce it, not to “The World” as an abstraction.
You appeal to freedom as a reason for space colonization when there’s plenty of freedom here. The best freedom on Earth the freedom from sudden, immediate, and certain death in 90% of the places on the surface of the Earth. Can’t say that about space.
Kirk, you’re misunderstanding what Carl means by “freedom” here, and it has to do with the difference between Natural Law and Political Law. Carl is talking about freedom from onerous taxation, regulation, and other State interference in private lives – freedom from the progressively-totalitarian form of Political Law.
He is not talking about freedom from Natural Law. Yes, humans evolved on this planet within a relatively-small window of environmental variation when compared to the extremes of space. Yes, it is possible to go outside nearly anywhere on the surface of the Earth and breathe freely. However, except in a few small areas of the world near the equator, it is not possible to survive year-round without some form of technology. If I was to go outside naked two nights ago, I would have been dead in about ten minutes, as it was -37C and windy.
I couldn’t survive without technology here in Canada, and I wouldn’t survive without technology in space either. The difference in freedom from Natural Law is zero. The difference in freedom from onerous Political Law is immense. I’d kinda be responsible for my own health care and defense and trade and everything else the State normally controls.
I am fairly confident that humanity has risen above its hunter gather phase and no longer requires stone age compatible environments – Antarctica being but one example.
If Antarctica is your poster child for how technology can make the uninhabitable habitable I think you’ve set back the cause of space colonization a few decades. You would have been better served using an aircraft carrier or cruise ship as an example of how technology allows us to “settle” the surface of the seas.
The proportion of people who have died in space is minuscule compared to many historical migrations/adventures. By that measure space settlement has shown itself to be fairly safe and doable, although self sufficiency is still some way off.
This comparison takes my breath away. Space settlement has shown itself to be safe and doable? By your logic colonizing the air has shown itself to be safe and doable as well.
10% of the global GDP for a thousand years to germinate the equivalent of another Earth full of people off planet (with Earth level GDP) would be an exceptionally good economic investment by historical standards.
It sure would. 10% of the global GDP for a hundred years to germinate the equivalent of another Antarctica full of people off planet (with Antarctic level GDP) would be an exceptionally poor economic investment by historical standards.
It’s a shame we have no way of realistically evaluating which scenario is closer to the truth at this juncture.
What makes you think they are?
Briefly, two things:
1. The lack of any reusable vehicle even approaching the necessary performance after decades of interest and billions of dollars spent in many different nations.
2. The disinclination of others to develop RLVs despite stated interest.
Ed, the technology that keeps you alive on Earth is cheap and simple. Adequate clothing, insulated shelter, maybe a propane bottle and a burner. You have sufficient gravity, water, and oxygen at nearly all times.
Space is totally different. You are completely reliant on a stunning array of technology, and failure means death pretty soon.
If it’s freedom you’re after, you’re going the wrong direction heading out to space. Considering the expense you’ll be to the people back home, you’ll have them monitoring every minute and dollar of your existence and you’ll have to be justifying why you’re out there on their nickel. So unless you can come up with some staggeringly profitable activity that you alone can do and can’t be done better by a robot who doesn’t need to come home and “eats” solar energy, don’t imagine that they’ll be inclined to fund your colonization activity.
People that engage in unprofitable activities typically don’t get to engage in them very long.
@Jim Davis:
I agree there is no ironclad evidence RLVs are possible with existing technology, but it does seem like a reasonable assumption. I believe the problem is more one of economics, it is simply too hard to make a buck building an RLV (or HLV for that matter) when demand is currently so low. Still, we’re slowly moving in that direction with the suborbital people. On the government side we’re seeing even less progress, since making an economical LV seems to beyond the ability of governments, whose desire to distribute pork is directly at odds with developing an economical launch vehicle.
Considering the expense you’ll be to the people
back homein Washington, you’ll have them monitoring every minute and dollar of your existence and you’ll have to be justifying why you’reout therealive on their nickel.FTFY
It’s a shame we have no way of realistically evaluating which scenario is closer to the truth at this juncture.
Generalizing specific data points to the point of absurdity can often be entertaining but is not otherwise particularly useful in developing a serious argument. We have not yet demonstrated a general solution to space but we can approximate one (and ideal limits) by collecting specific solutions to the specific problems entailed and extrapolating from there.
Safe enough living has been demonstrated in space, high tech dependent human environments have been demonstrated, the raw materials and energy for life have been discovered in space in very large quantities – more than on Earth, the raw fuel cost to get to LEO is around $10/kg, highly reusable vehicles have been demonstrated in closely related areas, and so forth.
Often in development one tackles uncertainties one at a time in isolation before attempting a general solution. That is what many people have been doing with regard to space.
I agree there is no ironclad evidence RLVs are possible with existing technology,
Just to be clear I’m not specifically talking about technology but the state of the art of which technology would form a subset. And of course I wouldn’t demand ironclad evidence just reasonable inferences. For example, let’s say we’ve been operating for 5 years a vehicle that gave us x performance. Based on the operations of this vehicle we’ve identified possible improvements which could give us x + del x performance. Reasonable, but not ironclad by any means as experience with the 787 or A380 shows.
but it does seem like a reasonable assumption.
How so?
Generalizing specific data points to the point of absurdity can often be entertaining but is not otherwise particularly useful in developing a serious argument.
Safe enough living has been demonstrated in space, high tech dependent human environments have been demonstrated, the raw materials and energy for life have been discovered in space in very large quantities – more than on Earth, the raw fuel cost to get to LEO is around $10/kg, highly reusable vehicles have been demonstrated in closely related areas, and so forth.
Well, that’s the problem, Pete. Most people think that the quote I’ve highlighted above is a prime example of “generalizing specific data points to the point of absurdity”. That’s why space advocacy is such a small and marginal subculture.
…you all can’t seem to describe a physical commodity that will be returned to earth profitably
We don’t have to and your insistence that someone does after explaining why they don’t seems a bit deranged.
You insistence that survival in space or another body in the context of a settlement is somehow impossible is ridiculous. Not only can those challenges be overcome but so can the further challenge of developing a local economy.
By your measure, modern life on earth is not possible because we would all starve (and if Obama keeps it up we might) because the process of getting various foodstuff from production to the table is too complicated not to breakdown (again, if it does breakdown it’s not because it’s too hard. Mismanagement is a separate issue.) Sewage management in NYC is too complicated to be possible by your standard. The list is long…
Well, that’s the problem, Pete. Most people think that the quote I’ve highlighted above is a prime example of “generalizing specific data points to the point of absurdity”. That’s why space advocacy is such a small and marginal subculture.
It doesn’t matter what most people think. The question here should be: “How correct will space advocates be on a reasonable time scale?”
Jim, as to your complaint about “generalizing data points to the point of absurdity”, which is more absurd? Claiming that an RLV can be built, given the existence of an RLV? Or that an RLV is beyond the state of art, even though one has already been demonstrated? In other words, what is more absurd, generalizing using existing data, or generalizing by ignoring existing data?
Kirk, you wrote:
Karl, I’m sorry but you have to explain this more. What “data” will a human space colony return to earth that will justify the titanic expense of keeping them alive?
There was a misunderstanding. While data remains a valid export product, I was speaking of the only import from Earth being computer instructions.
At this point, there’s no way that either of us can prove our contentions (Though I maintain that saying space colonization is impossible has a greater likelihood of being false, given human history of doing things which were considered to be impossible. They instead turned out to be merely difficult.). All I can say though is that human society is a moving target which happens to be moving towards far cheaper manufacture, control systems, and access to space and its resources.
Further, we already have good ideas for basic ISRU (using the lunar example, extracting propellant from anywhere on the Moon, not just areas that have water and replacing structural mass, say by pushing dirt around). Those two items alone greatly reduce the mass needed for any sort of manned or unmanned long term presence on the Moon. I think the first long term mission to the Moon will test some ISRU approaches. The mass savings are simply too easy to obtain.
I think the fundamental problem, which the various arguments here illustrate, is that we simply have not done a great deal of space development. I consider this the single worst failing of human space efforts to this point, but that’s in the past. We’re getting to the point where even with a dysfunctional government space, we can pursue important development technologies and goals on the private side.
Having said that, we’re not to that point yet and there really isn’t a strong argument one way or another, aside from some longstanding trends to support my view above.
Space access has gotten cheaper and more competitive over the past few decades and we now have numerous commercial launch vehicles (and government launch vehicles with commercial access) globally. There are serious attempts at space tourism which can enable an incremental approach to space development. Earth-based manufacture has gotten progressively cheaper and more productive per worker for centuries. The global economy has grown exponentially since the late Middle Ages (after the Black Death).
Something like the Apollo Program is within reach of numerous governments and a few of the largest corporations. I agree that an Apollo reprise doesn’t have enough value to justify the effort, but these things have grown more affordable by the decade.
Ultimately, I see those trends spurring substantial space activity including colonization over a human lifetime.
I don’t think space colonization is impossible, and don’t assign me that position.
I think it is extremely unlikely and unbelievably challenging due to the properties of the space environment coupled with the lack of an economically viable export product to those who would be called on to fund the venture.
Simple analogies with previous human colonization efforts are utterly inadequate. Space colonization is VASTLY, VASTLY more challenging than anything attempted before. There is no human expansion that even comes close.
If there was something out there that we could return that would be worth it, that would be one thing, but no commodity or concept appears to meet that bill.
Returning to the original contention of the post, Rand Simberg asserted that if settlement and colonization was the focus of a human space effort, that there would be greater public support for the effort. I totally disagree.
Rand Simberg asserted that if settlement and colonization was the focus of a human space effort, that there would be greater public support for the effort.
That’s not really what I asserted, though I can see why you inferred that. My assertion is that if you don’t or can’t sell it for the right reason, there’s no point in doing it at all. It may indeed be a harder sell, but that just means that we (who want to see humanity in space) have to work a lot harder on it. The Augustine Panel agreed.
Jim, as to your complaint about “generalizing data points to the point of absurdity”,
Just to be clear that was Pete’s complaint, not mine.
which is more absurd? Claiming that an RLV can be built, given the existence of an RLV? Or that an RLV is beyond the state of art, even though one has already been demonstrated? In other words, what is more absurd, generalizing using existing data, or generalizing by ignoring existing data?
Karl, I’m guessing you’re referring to the Shuttle. In space advocacy circles, which I thought I was in, the Shuttle is not considered to be an RLV. Space advocacy luminaries, such as Gary Hudson, Len Cormier, Henry Spencer, Ed Wright, etc have lectured at various times and places why the Shuttle can not be considered an RLV. At best it is considered to be an RLV failure or a partial RLV. This might not be a fair characterization (cynics like me think it’s primarily to disallow it to be used as an argument in the ongoing ELV vs RLV debate) but it is what it is. Note that MPM certainly understood it in this context.
Or possibly you had something else in mind when you claim I’m “ignoring existing data”? If so, enlighten me.
Just to be clear I’m not specifically talking about technology but the state of the art of which technology would form a subset.
OK, fair enough.
How so?
Because we know that by using two or even three stages we can get the kind of mass fractions that will allow intact reentry and return to launch site of the individual stages. As I understand it’s not that flyback boosters require new technology (though certain new technologies could be very useful), but that they’re bloody expensive to develop. If you look at just recurring costs and not amortisation of R&D costs I thought both the technical and economical viability of RLVs was widely accepted. It’s R&D that’s the killer. Maybe I’m misinformed, but that’s my understanding.
We have far more science and demonstrable data points backing up the possibility of low cost space (and none saying otherwise) than we do backing up climate models (for which we have far fewer empirical test results), and yet the world seems quite happy to be certain about the effects of global warming?
Low cost space is assumed unlikely until the numbers say otherwise, which is fine, however if one does systematically trawl through all the numbers, and all the noted objections, the ayes fairly unequivocally have it. Like the process of science itself, the case for low cost space has been systematically developed and tested one small step at a time, growing our confidence in the result (if only climate modelling was so easy).
The space shuttle (but one data point) says what is possible under certain conditions (reusable engines, orbiters and reentry systems, etc), it does not say what is impossible.
Most objections to space are of the it does not currently exist therefore it is not possible nature – absence of possible is not proof of impossible.
Ed, the technology that keeps you alive on Earth is cheap and simple. Adequate clothing, insulated shelter, maybe a propane bottle and a burner. You have sufficient gravity, water, and oxygen at nearly all times.
Note that the requirements for clothing, shelter, and heat during a Canadian winter require at the very least Stone Age technology. The difference in freedom from Natural Law is still zero: use technology to stay warm and dry or die. Frostbite and hypothermia don’t care how advanced your tech is — if your state-of-the-art automobile breaks down in a remote area you’re in serious trouble.
This is vastly different from freedom from Political Law, which is what Carl was talking about as a motivation for people to colonize space. Paying for it is a completely different issue.
“Stones do not fall from the sky, because
there are not any stones in the sky!”
Said the 18th century Natural Philosopher,
ignoring the fact that he was standing on
a stone in the sky.
“Anyone who understands Chemistry and
Orbital Mechanics, understands that flight
to other planets is forever impossible.”
Said the 19th century Scientific Expert,
ignoring the fact that the Rocket Equation,
with known fuels and materials as inputs,
said that it was, barely, possible.
“We have to choose between NERVA, which will
enable us to do deep-space exploration, and
DUMBO, which _might_ lead to a fission powered
SSTO vehicle.”
Said the NASA Engineer Managers (not a typo)
forty years ago, just before choosing the safe,
sure thing.
“I don’t have the stones to attempt the difficult,
so I will console myself by claiming it is impossible.”
Said Kirk Sorensen, who spends a great deal of time
(and why bother, really) saying, repeatedly (paraphrased):
No! You are wrong _I_ have studied all the data and
previous studies, and concluded that they are wrong.
Ah, you’ve finally found the real reason I’ve been arguing this.
It’s a lack of manhood.
You, on the other hand, are far braver than me and should go forth and colonize and populate the new frontier with your virile offspring. Your bravery and vivacity will make it so easy.
I’ll head downstairs to my mom’s basement (where I live on my salary as a pizza delivery boy) to play video games.
…that we could return that would be worth it…
Kirk, would it be worth something to know (yeah, in yer moms basement indeed) that millions of people lived in settlements throughout the solar system?
Suppose, unlike you, they were so foolish of economic truth that they just did it anyway and were now living out there on local resources… wouldn’t that be worth something to you?
Suppose SETI started a [very long] conversation with an alien intelligence. Would that change how you see things?
Ken, what are you asking? Your questions don’t make any sense. It sounds like you’re asking me what I would think if I discovered water flowing uphill or something.
I guess the answer would be, I would be very surprised. How does that advance our discussion?
Because we know that by using two or even three stages we can get the kind of mass fractions that will allow intact reentry and return to launch site of the individual stages.
But how do we know that? No reusable vehicle has come close to demonstrating the kind of performance a stage would need in a 2 or 3 stage RLV. Indeed, this is the reason why reusability has been dropped – to achieve the necessary performance.
We have far more science and demonstrable data points backing up the possibility of low cost space (and none saying otherwise) …
Low cost space is assumed unlikely until the numbers say otherwise, which is fine, however if one does systematically trawl through all the numbers, and all the noted objections, the ayes fairly unequivocally have it.
Pete, quite frankly I think you’re seeing what you want to see. Keeping people alive off earth is fantastically expensive. Confidently predicting vast extraterrestrial migrations based on manned space experience to date is just being out of touch with reality.
That said, it would be foolish to predict that it will never happen. No one knows what the future might bring. But from the world of 2010 it doesn’t look to be in the cards.
Note that the requirements for clothing, shelter, and heat during a Canadian winter require at the very least Stone Age technology.
Actually there are many species that do quite nicely in Canadian winters with no technology whatsoever.
Off earth is a different matter entirely, of course.
No reusable vehicle has come close to demonstrating the kind of performance a stage would need in a 2 or 3 stage RLV.
Huh? Are you implying a reusable stage capable of pushing itself and its payload through 3km/s is pushing the limits?
Pete, quite frankly I think you’re seeing what you want to see. Keeping people alive off earth is fantastically expensive. Confidently predicting vast extraterrestrial migrations based on manned space experience to date is just being out of touch with reality.
If by reality you mean NASA, then I would agree with you.
When considering what is possible, the first step is often to go back to the fundamentals and redesign from scratch. In doing so it quickly becomes apparent that the current NASA HSF reality disconnect is extreme, to put it mildly.
Are you implying a reusable stage capable of pushing itself and its payload through 3km/s is pushing the limits?
Well, stating rather than implying, but yes, I am.
If by reality you mean NASA, then I would agree with you.
When considering what is possible, the first step is often to go back to the fundamentals and redesign from scratch. In doing so it quickly becomes apparent that the current NASA HSF reality disconnect is extreme, to put it mildly.
I’m not sure what to make of this, Pete. First you say “we have far more science and demonstrable data points backing up the possibility of low cost space (and none saying otherwise) “. Now you seem to be backpedaling and want to go back to the fundamentals and redesign from scratch. Please clear this up for me.
Well, stating rather than implying, but yes, I am.
OK, that’s surprising. Do you mean it’s pushing the limits of what exists or what is possible with existing technology?
Do you mean it’s pushing the limits of what exists or what is possible with existing technology?
I’m saying it pushes the state of the art which includes technology as a subset. It may well be possible with existing technology but in my opinion we lack the necessary knowledge. As an example take an aircraft in service late in WWI, say the Fokker DVII. Could this aircraft have been built in 1900? Sure, given a complete set of drawings there is no technological reason why it could not have been built in 1900. But it could never have been designed in 1900 because the knowledge to produce such a design was not available then. Great advances had been made in aerodynamics, structures, tactics, etc in the interim at great cost in blood and treasure.
It is my opinion that the knowledge to build an RLV (or to forestall objections, RLVs as space advocates envision them) is not in hand and will take an unknown amount of time, effort, and money to acquire. Will new technology be required? My guess is probably but I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
Ken, what are you asking?
Kirk, you keep insisting that there is no return of any worth to earth for people to settle the solar system. That’s an extremely short term view.
Suppose we get beyond that short view and actually do settle the solar system to either a greater or lesser extent. Further, assume their is no profitable trade with earth (I personally reject that possibility, but just for the purpose of the question.) The only thing is now some people can leave the earth and join with other colonists. The cost of leaving the earth remains high so it’s not available to just anybody. You and I are too poor to take advantage of this opportunity.
So now we have these two alternatives: As it is today with no colonization or with settlements sprinkled throughout the solar system.
Kirk, what I’m asking is… Are you seriously saying that the second alternative has no worth to you? If your answer is yes, then I have to wonder how you can be so blind?
I’m not sure what to make of this, Pete. First you say “we have far more science and demonstrable data points backing up the possibility of low cost space (and none saying otherwise) “. Now you seem to be backpedaling and want to go back to the fundamentals and redesign from scratch. Please clear this up for me.
The data points reveal the theory and the theory informs us what is and is not practically possible. It seems to me, and a great many other people, that we actually have more than enough basic data now to figure out what we generally need to do. Unfortunately a couple of generations of perverse incentives means that the general competence to develop low cost space no longer exists in and around NASA (assuming it ever did).
NASA has provided some very useful technical data points with regard to demonstrating space, however they have not really provided any useful economic data points – that is just not their skill set.
Combined technical and disruptive business competence is required to analyse and understand what is and is not possible with regard to low cost space. One should be highly dubious of “experts” without such general competence (beware experts preaching outside their area of expertise). Internet startups are where most of that talent went, though some of it is coming back to New Space (and not by accident – they apparently see something worth going after).
The data points reveal the theory and the theory informs us what is and is not practically possible.
Pete, you’re going to have to spell this out. What data points? What theory?
One should be highly dubious of “experts” without such general competence (beware experts preaching outside their area of expertise).
I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of such advice coming from someone posting anonymously.
Pete, you’re going to have to spell this out. What data points? What theory?
Well, first one has to get the relevant technical education, and the relevant business education…
I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of such advice coming from someone posting anonymously.
I really do not, apparently you are new to this specific field (many years of homework usually required prior to general productive comment), unlike most everyone else around here. Also, if you are dependent upon appeals to authority…
Pete, you’re going to have to spell this out. What data points? What theory?
Well, first one has to get the relevant technical education, and the relevant business education…
Fine, Pete. I’m sure someone within the sound of your voice will be able to meet the stringent qualifications necessary to understand you. Please go ahead and spell it out. What data points? What theory?
I’m sure you can appreciate the irony of such advice coming from someone posting anonymously.
I really do not,
You’ve convinced me.
Fine, Pete. I’m sure someone within the sound of your voice will be able to meet the stringent qualifications necessary to understand you. Please go ahead and spell it out. What data points? What theory?
A treatise upon the theory and economics of space settlement are far far beyond the scope of this comments section. Some people I think worth reading on the subject are:
Gerard O’Neil, Jerry Pournelle, Len Cormier, Maxwell Hunter, Gary Hudson, Jeff Greason, Elon Musk, Henry Spenser, George Herbert, Rand Simberg, Jonathan Goff, John Carmack, and so forth.
Pete, you’re going to have to spell this out. What data points? What theory? Pete, if I may…
Jim, being dense is a tactic of yours, but let’s go ahead a spell out of few things. Those data points go beyond just theory. What data points?…
The record of costs for NASA and commercial vendors are now history. NASA is more than ten times more costly. This represents an upper limit of costs per kg. Private companies have a history of reducing costs over time. Those other data points exist everywhere and space is no different. You might point out how government involvement skews that (which would be quite ironic coming from you.) But go ahead and keep pretending you are ignorant. We all understand.
A treatise upon the theory and economics of space settlement are far far beyond the scope of this comments section.
You disappoint me, Pete. I am beginning to suspect that there are no data points and no theories.
Some people I think worth reading on the subject are:
Gerard O’Neil, Jerry Pournelle, Len Cormier, Maxwell Hunter, Gary Hudson, Jeff Greason, Elon Musk, Henry Spenser, George Herbert, Rand Simberg, Jonathan Goff, John Carmack, and so forth.
Pete, you have proven a less than adequate spokesman for that group.
Jim, being dense is a tactic of yours…
And yours is being rude and belligerent. Now that the ad hominems are out of the way…
The record of costs for NASA and commercial vendors are now history. NASA is more than ten times more costly. This represents an upper limit of costs per kg. Private companies have a history of reducing costs over time. Those other data points exist everywhere and space is no different. You might point out how government involvement skews that (which would be quite ironic coming from you.) But go ahead and keep pretending you are ignorant. We all understand.
Ken, what does NASA have to do with anything? By all means, let us suppose that space settlement is being attempted by the party or parties you deem most suited for the task. Having settled that, please explain what data or what theories or whatever suggests to you that it is possible for humanity to thrive off earth. All I get from you is that you have a deep abiding faith that it will all come to pass some day. You might even be right. Who can predict the future? But personal convictions are of course personal and not persuasive. I can respect yours and Pete’s convictions as convictions. What I object to is when they are presented as inevitable laws of nature and the bitter resentment and personal attacks that follow when they aren’t accepted as such.