Michael Mealing has some interesting commentary (similar to what I might say if I had the time) to a conventional-wisdom article from James Burk. Yes, it is a fisking, but a gentle one, and a needed one.

Beat me to it.

Let me add a comment on this statement by Michael:
So, I have to completely disagree with this notion that the driver of the entire effort is Science. Science is in the far back seat to the entire effort. The real driver should be pure economic expansion.

I'm a scientist, so I think I have some insight on this point. Michael is absolutely right. Science is not about building launchers, it's about taking measurements. If we can get launch costs down there will be no shortage of opportunities for scientific investigation. Commercial scuba equipment is a routine part of the marine biologist's toolkit. Without the commerce, marine biology would be vastly harder. Scientists should push commerce as hard as possible, because it will open up new possibilities for research. Not only is economic expansion a better justified use of taxpayer dollars (after all, if people start making money in space it helps us all, since they'll presumably spend that money on stuff, some of which is stuff the rest of us are paid to design, build, sell, or service), but it also vastly leverages scientific exploration. Science is not distinct from commerce, it is deeply interwoven with it. Even the research I am working on would not be possible without the huge price breaks in vacuum systems created by the large numbers of such systems sold for industrial purposes. Semiconductor processing and other commercial applications of vacuum technology have done more for fusion research than any single experiment, just by to driving down the cost of high quality vacuum equipment.

Well, you beat me to amplifying on Michael's comment about science, so we're even. ;-)

"No, the driver has to be to build a profitable industry the way we did with aviation and railroads."

This seems to be the take home message from the linked article. Philosophically, I have no problem with this approach. However,

Weren't the railroads given lots and lots and lots of free government land in the 1800s?

Aren't airports usually built with tax dollars?

If American Airlines had to pay fair rental value without tax subsidies for every airport landing strip they use, could the airline industry profitably exist?

Had they not gotten that 9-11 multi-billion dollar bailout, most airlines would be bankrupt today. Airlines and trains are not the best free market example, IMHO.

To jump-start free enterprise we begin with a massive taxpayer subsidy, right?

Ah, the new American way. ;-)

= = =

If there were a profitable business model in LEO and beyond, wouldn't some rich guys have partnered up with the Ukrainians already and bought Zenit-2 and Zenit-3SLs and started doing it already?

Weren't the railroads given lots and lots and lots of free government land in the 1800s?

Yes, free worthless land that was made valuable only because the railroads were built. There was no out-of-pocket cost to the taxpayer.

Aren't airports usually built with tax dollars?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they must be.

If American Airlines had to pay fair rental value without tax subsidies for every airport landing strip they use, could the airline industry profitably exist?

Who knows? We haven't tried it.

To jump-start free enterprise we begin with a massive taxpayer subsidy, right?

No, not necessarily. It might be sufficient to simply end the massive taxpayer subsidy provided to the competition to free enterprise.

I am not unsympathetic to the idea of giving property rights on celestial bodies to the first company that stakes a claim in person, with tele-presence as a further idea to consider.

That would be like giving currently worthless land to whoever can develop it for a useful purpose. Not a bad idea. IIRC, either Trotsky or Engels said "Tools belong to the man who can best use them." { wink }

I believe Mark Whittington proposed selling bonds backed by property rights in celestial objects. I have some quibbles, but no huge philosophical objection.

However, the western United States was within the jurisdiction of Washington to give away. I fear the Chinese, Russians and others will not be too keen on the United States unilaterally recognizing property rights in celestial objects.

As far as launch costs, a truly free market will empower the Russians and the Ukrainians at America's expense. Even if the alt-space folks develop and deploy even lower cost Earth to LEO than Zenit, by definition those systems will be inexpensive to manufacture and operate hence vulnerable to theft and reverse engineering by the Chinese and Russians, etc. . .

And that creates a national security concern.

If so, it's a national security concern with which we'll have to learn to live. We didn't throttle the aviation industry because other nations could build airplanes, and if would be foolish to do so with this one. Protectionism is certainly no answer.

First, I agree.

If alt-space is technically feasible, it will happen and then proliferate around the planet. We need to deal with it. But post 9-11 that will cause no small about of domestic anxiety.

Maybe I am a pessimist and I certainly am no rocket scientist, yet if the Pentagon and NORAD are not all hot and bothered by things like Armadillo and Kistler and the fictional Rocket Company's DH-1 that suggests to me that the engineering to do $1000 per pound to LEO or $500 per pound to LEO is very much harder than the alt-space proponents currently believe.

If I am right here, and I candidly emphasis IF

and $1000 per pound to LEO and lower is not just over the horizon, then any viable space related business model would work today, in partnership with the Russians and Ukrainians. As Futron reports Zenit-2 is less than $1500 per pound as of a few years ago and launch costs have fallen since then.

IMHO, Bigelow's space hotel is our best first bet for commerical space in LEO. I say get a name sponsor (google what FedEx paid to name Redskins stadium) and a handful of back up sponsors (Verizon is a personal favorite of mine "Can you hear me now?")

also sell partnership or co-op shares like Sam Dinkin recently suggested.

Don't you think Tom Hanks would pay $50 million for 10% ownership of the 1st space hotel AND exclusive rights to film feature films?

Oprah buys 10% and the exclusive right to have a talk show live from space once per year.

A 10% co-op share also guarantees you a week or two per year for you and your guests (after you pay Starsem for the Soyuz flight).

Now, Elon Musk has one heck of an incentive to man-rate his Falcon V ASAP.

The federal government is simply avoided. If Congress or NASA tries to stop you, fly from Kouru.

= = =

The KEY is private sector demand.

Avoid tax dollars as the single payor source of space funding.

Private sector SUPPLY where private contractors sell to NASA and other federally funded programs is merely an opportunity for graft and bribery in the awarding of contracts.

Maybe I am a pessimist and I certainly am no rocket scientist, yet if the Pentagon and NORAD are not all hot and bothered by things like Armadillo and Kistler and the fictional Rocket Company's DH-1 that suggests to me that the engineering to do $1000 per pound to LEO or $500 per pound to LEO is very much harder than the alt-space proponents currently believe.

Well, to the degree that such things exist, I am a rocket scientist, and it suggests nothing of the sort to me. At most, it suggests that they believe that it's harder, which doesn't mean that it is. But what it really suggests is that they just aren't concerned about it or that in fact they want to encourage it so they can take advantage of the technology as it evolves. The FAA wouldn't have issued its new launch licensing regulations without coordinating with other agencies.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

If the alt-space effort produces a $250 - $500 per pound to LEO RLV in the next 10 - 20 years, I will eat crow with a happy smile on my face. :-)

Still, I won't hold my breath.

Bigelow has signed up for a Falcon launch yet if Musk cannot deliver a TransHab hotel to LEO, I sure hope Bigelow send it up with Zenit.

If Bigelow does this, lifting a space hotel for well under $1 billion, the ISS folks and their $100 billion space station are going to look mighty foolish.

You won't have to eat crow--it will be much cheaper than that.

"Weren't the railroads given lots and lots and lots of free government land in the 1800s?"

Yes, about 130 million acres that they immediately started selling to farmers who then bought rides from the same railroads. Also, the land came with contractural agreements to carry government cargo & passengers at a discount rate. The contracts were renegotiated after the government figured they had been reimbursed in full. Nowadays, the railroads are paying property taxes on those same strips of land. Not a bad deal for the government, IMHO.

Dan DeLong