I’m surprised at the degree to which I agree with his views. Yes, we definitely need space nuclear reactors, and science cannot justify a human mission to Mars.
26 thoughts on “Jeff Bezos And Space”
Comments are closed.
I’m surprised at the degree to which I agree with his views. Yes, we definitely need space nuclear reactors, and science cannot justify a human mission to Mars.
Comments are closed.
Null link, right now, even from Spacenews home page.
Re prizes: I wonder if he’s been following Jerry Pournelle, who’s been advocating the prize approach for years.
Came here to make the same comment. I’m pretty sure Jerry (whom I’ve known for 30 years now) was making this suggestion at least 20 years ago and possibly 30.
I think we’ve moved past prizes, NASA should just expand COTS to further afield.
This^^
Prizes seem like one off flags and brags. A COTS like approach leads to businesses making profits, expanding markets, and repeatability.
Working on nuclear power/propulsion is a good idea, not because private industry couldn’t do it but because our government wouldn’t let them anyway.
wodun++
COTS in new locations should be the new prizes.
We really, really need nukes, but the greenies in all parts of our gov’t and culture will do anything to stop them.
“Yes, we definitely need space nuclear reactors, and science cannot justify a human mission to Mars.”
We don’t need space nuclear reactors for science and NASA should not go to Mars for science reasons. NASA should not even do space missions for science reasons- other than solar science.
NASA should explore the Moon to determine if there is commercially minable water is on the Moon. Then NASA should explore Mars to determine if and where there could be viable Mars settlements on Mars. In terms of science regarding Mars, NASA could determine what causes global dust storms and thereby learn if or how they could be prevented. But this only matters if Mars is viable location for human settlements.
“We don’t need space nuclear reactors for science and NASA should not go to Mars for science reasons. NASA should not even do space missions for science reasons- other than solar science.”
What? Are you serious?
Regarding prizes, NASA should offer a 1 billion dollar prize for Mars sample return- 1 kg of material anywhere from Mars surface. And 100 million dollar prize for sample return from any of Mars moons [1 kg anywhere].
Once NASA explore Moon, NASA might offer a prize to mine 100 kg of
lunar water. 100 million dollar prize for first non government project to do it. Prize is for activity not buying the water or requiring it to be returned to Earth.
I guess at present, NASA could offer 200 million prize for any non government to return 1 kg of lunar material from either lunar polar region if done before NASA does it.
The Federal Government should just set up a fund 5 billion for Luna and 10 billion for Mars. They would provide a floor for mineral sample returns. 20,000 a gram from the moon and 1/4 million a gram from mars.
Put a limit per company per year… just provide the floor like they have did in the past with other minerals. No returns and no costs.
Bezos doesn’t have to be right to help expand the human sphere. He’s rich enough to try things and stay in the game. He provides needed competition to SpaceX.
Gradatim Ferociter! The company is two years older than SpaceX. Never been to orbit. Never shown a profit. It doesn’t have to.
Bezos is worth $59B, but thinks taxpayers should put up a prize that he would presumably try to collect. If I had his money I wouldn’t be talking about what the govt. needs to do. I’d be doing it and at a much faster pace because I’d be working contracts with existing companies.
In-space nuclear reactors aren’t complicated (and can be done without enrichment) many private companies could do it. The problem is entirely political.
As for destination. Go everywhere and let natural growth determine the best places.
I’d be doing it and at a much faster pace because I’d be working contracts with existing companies.
Bezos is certainly positioning BO as a government contractor but notice how they have a finger in so many other businesses? They are taking advantage of all the opportunities available, whether from government, companies that serve the government, independant companies, and even through their primary business.
Making their BE4 engine available to others is certainly a smart move. They are going to be a player, but without hunger and drive they may not be the player they could be. As with Intel, having lots of cash reserves can make up for a lot of other deficiencies. They have more long term potential than short term. However, now that they’re actually flying something they may make some surprising moves forward.
The space industry is just now beginning to move out of its infancy. This is where the S curve goes up at a faster pace. Some may think launch revenues are going to dry up (all industries have their shake out period) but I don’t think anyone really understands how colonization will drive things forward. Not research bases, but growing colonies where ever they go (you know my bet.)
notice how they have a finger in so many other businesses?
Quite a business model (“I want it all!”) But that has a downside. It means not being focused on doing one thing well. Others that are can eat into your business piecemeal (jet.com?)
Everything SpaceX does fits into one goal. Without that one goal (cheap launch access is not that goal, just a result of the goal) they would not be making the spectacular achievements they have (and we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.)
The Ansari X Prize doesn’t seem to have worked. In a way, it is similar to Apollo, just using a different method. By holding out this giant carrot, resources are allocated towards the prize, which may or may not push space development into a fruitful direction.
Jon, I’ll concede that neither the X prize nor Apollo resulted in sustainable, market priced access into space.
Each of them did result in demonstration that the goal was possible, and people and organizations that were capable of building and flying spaceships.
Question: will we lament the COTS contracts in 10 years as failing to open up space? (after NASA stops funding them).
NASA looks like uncle sugar, but they are only a drop in the bucket compared to what commerce will do. We need to move to that next phase which means getting lots of people living off earth.
It really doesn’t matter what they’re doing other than providing a market for hundreds of little companies that will serve their needs.
Question: will we lament the COTS contracts in 10 years as failing to open up space? (after NASA stops funding them).
Regardless of whether or not the COTS programs open space or not, they have been a very effective means of procurement for services that NASA needs. Wasn’t that their main goal?
How will NASA stop funding the COTS programs? They will still need crew and cargo deliveries. If/when they scrap ISS, they will also need crew and cargo deliveries to where ever. COTS will still be a better procurement strategy.
Will annual or biannual SLS launches be able to meet the demands of crew, cargo, and planetary science?
The main benefit of the COTS programs, in terms of potentially opening up space, are that they allow providers to have customers other than NASA. Some of those providers aren’t pursuing other customers, others are.
–Jon
June 16, 2016 at 9:28 AM
The Ansari X Prize doesn’t seem to have worked.–
Of course it worked. Which doesn’t mean it gave you a result you might have wanted- I guess, as quickly as you wanted.
The Ansari X Prize changed the FAA. And it demonstrated that one could build a cheap sub-orbital human spacecraft which fly humans to 100 km. It probably had an effect upon the creation of SpaceX, and it got lots of people attempting to build sub-orbital spacecraft. We have airports which one fly suborbital aircraft from. And Blue Origin has rocket with has gone to 100 km and it reusable.
We don’t have commercial seats which go to 100 km, yet. So didn’t happen as fast as some [including myself] had hoped. But people have bought tickets and they still hope to go to 100 km- relatively soon.
Barnstorming has a limited future. Self sustaining colonies will be the engine that drives everything else forward. We have constellations of satellites around the earth. Next will be constellations of satellites BEO and around the moon.
Next will be constellations of satellites BEO and around the moon.
It’s tragic that this isn’t the case already. Maybe if NASA didn’t focus on building one of a kind satellites, we would have constellations around all the planets by now.
I hope you’re right, but I don’t see it like you do. I don’t know if it spurred on SpaceX–in fact I doubt that as SpaceX was founded in 2002.
My point is not that it didn’t work spurring on space development, it was more along the line of malinvestment. Was the rocket requirements a step in the right direction? A giant carrot like the X Prize might be enough to convince a company to change its tactics from a direction that it thinks is more fruitful, into one that fits into the parameters of the X Prize.
–Jon
June 17, 2016 at 10:53 AM
I hope you’re right, but I don’t see it like you do. I don’t know if it spurred on SpaceX–in fact I doubt that as SpaceX was founded in 2002.–
But X-prize was founded in 1996, renamed Ansari X Prize in 2004, and won in 2004. wiki:
“Created in May 1996 and initially called just the “X Prize”, it was renamed the “Ansari X Prize” on May 6, 2004 following a multimillion-dollar donation from entrepreneurs Anousheh Ansari and Amir Ansari.
The prize was won on October 4, 2004, the 47th anniversary of the Sputnik 1 launch, by the Tier One project designed by Burt Rutan and financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen”
And SpaceX first successfully launch Falcon-1 in 2008.
–My point is not that it didn’t work spurring on space development, it was more along the line of malinvestment. Was the rocket requirements a step in the right direction? —
The point was it was a challenge.
Likewise I have no idea if Google’s X-prize will get anything to the Moon, but I think it’s been helpful. It’s PR, it’s getting people focused on something [which btw I think it generally in the right direction]. All businesses have high chance to fail- this is actually feature and not a bug.
I like idea of using a mothership. And one thing I like about a mothership is one asks why use a mothership? And could something better than mothership be used instead.
–A giant carrot like the X Prize might be enough to convince a company to change its tactics from a direction that it thinks is more fruitful, into one that fits into the parameters of the X Prize.–
Well X prize was not big carrot- in fact a fair amount of uncertainly about whether the prize money would be available were the task done.
Generally, I think prizes should have high certainty, but I think too large of prize is problematic- one reason it’s problematic is what you mentioned, being a possible distraction.
So part of prizes is PR, another part of prize is “finding” a different way to do it [whatever it is]. And the mothership, laughing gas, and folding wings for re-entry- is certainly something different..
I will enter this interesting discussing to a posting on my own blog I have titled Jeff Bezos and Space.
He is a very interesting man with an interesting family and personal history, especially regarding space exploration and development.
Why, yes, I agree with him in significant ways. Developing a space based civilization that is open and democratic and does more than get a few humans to Mars seems better for all.
a space based civilization that is open and democratic
Why assume that to be the result? What are the forces involved that will shape that society?
One thing to remember with respect to barnstorming is that there were literally hundreds of planes left over from the World War 1 demobilization. Pilots could easily buy an aircraft for 1/10 the production cost, hence they could afford to “barnstorm” around the country and charge low fares.
…I don’t see a large supply of surplus spacecraft or boosters available, so I don’t think the barnstormer paradigm is a very good one. I can think of another approach from the same era which ended up moving the state of the art forward.