Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Here's one

It's unlikely that today's governments could do it for less than $250 million a person.

Guess he hasn't heard that the going rate for a Soyuz seat is $12-$15 million.

Posted by at June 24, 2004 08:01 AM

Well, I spotted a couple of problems:

"... the government's own space program — NASA — seems unable to sustain interest or excitement about space exploration ..." Interest and excitement are doing just fine; the problem is execution, and specifically the execution of getting lots of people into space.

"... placing private spacecraft into sustainable low-earth orbit would open the door for space hotels, greatly expanded satellite communications networks, zero gravity drug and crystal manufacturing, and a bevy of other uses." LEO isn't going to be a safe place to spend a lot of time, comsats don't need people to carry them up, and microgravity manufacturing will be a relatively minor element of the space economy. Let's think about that "bevy of other uses" instead.

Even if I got it right, don't feel free to get in front of any speeding trucks, Rand. You may have other things yet to accomplish. ;)

Posted by Jay Manifold at June 24, 2004 08:48 AM

This is from Jay Manifold's link to Fredrick Turner:

>> Apologists for space exploration have often added to their list of practical reasons to go to space a half-apologetic reference to the adventure and aspiration of it. It is as if they were ashamed of their true motivations and had to relegate them to the position of an afterthought.

Aspiration will sell more than adventure, IMHO, but I agree with the main point.

>> But a cold analysis of the direction of the world's economic future leaves such motivations as the only reliable source of good old-fashioned profit, once every automatable and replicable industry has, by improvements in efficiency and competitive reduction of costs, priced itself into economic insignificance.

I agree with this as well. Ain't no obvious profit in space, otherwise Bechtel and Halliburton and the European and Japanese equivalents would be out there already.

The fact that Boeing looked at the X-prize and yawned tells me there is no pot of gold (or platinum) just waiting to be snagged like ripe fruit from a low hanging tree.

But, as human population expands out into the solar system total human wealth will increase very substantially - - humanity's first trillionaire will be made from investing in space - - but it may be the grandchild of the person who makes that first investment.

>> The nations and corporations that get in on the ground floor of the emerging charm economy will control the pipelines of economic value. Terraforming is art, adventure, history, travel: Invest in these and watch your money grow.

True. Whoever settles space first will have a head start on shaping the direction of this multi-trillion dollar future economy, and siphoning off a decent share.

The great political prize of this 21st century will be "the right to write the rules to govern ownership of property in space" - - since property does not exist until law defines it as such.

When it comes time to write the property laws for extra-terrestial locations, people actually living out there will have a more compelling voice than a corporation based on Earth that only sends robots and temporary workers.

The key is settlement. Just as George Whitesides told the Aldridge Commision.

Posted by Bill White at June 24, 2004 09:53 AM

Ain't no obvious profit in space, otherwise Bechtel and Halliburton and the European and Japanese equivalents would be out there already.

The fact that Boeing looked at the X-prize and yawned tells me there is no pot of gold (or platinum) just waiting to be snagged like ripe fruit from a low hanging tree.

Who ever claimed that there was?

That's called a straw man argument, and has no relevance to the discussion.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 24, 2004 09:59 AM

Jeez, the guy can't spell either Lindbergh or Shepard correctly, and seems unaware that Lindbergh's flight was famous for being solo, not first.

I'm supposed to finish reading his article and his deep insights why, exactly?

Posted by Alan S. at June 24, 2004 10:03 AM

No, its just facing facts.

What Turner is saying is that profit motive alone will be insufficient to get humanity out into space. I agree with that.

Posted by Bill White at June 24, 2004 10:06 AM

Actually, the prize wasn't for doing it solo--it was for doing it non-stop. Solo was the means to the end, because it meant less weight in the aircraft that could be carried as fuel instead. It was a gutsy move.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 24, 2004 10:07 AM

What Turner is saying is that profit motive alone will be insufficient to get humanity out into space. I agree with that.

I don't about that. However, I think it's fair to say that the profit motive will keep humanity in space.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 24, 2004 10:09 AM

What Turner is saying is that profit motive alone will be insufficient to get humanity out into space.

That's not a fact, regardless of whether or not you agree with it.

The fact that Boeing and the other companies you mention aren't investing in it has no bearing on whether or not it's potentially profitable. It only shows that you don't understand what business they're in.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 24, 2004 10:12 AM

Rand makes a good point vis a vis the profit potential of outer space and the lack of interest by the major aerospace companies. The photocopier and radio were considered unworthy of investment too once upon a time. "Who would want to send a message to no one in particular?" or words to that effect.

Posted by Jason Bontrager at June 24, 2004 11:27 AM

What Turner is saying is that profit motive alone will be insufficient to get humanity out into space. I agree with that.

I don't about that. However, I think it's fair to say that the profit motive will keep humanity in space.

= = =

I have no quarrel with the profit motive. Gosh, I like a nice profit myself, from time to time.

Properly harnessed, the profit motive will be an essential tool for getting humans into space. Also, profit will keep us there and will grow the total human economy to nearly unimaginable levels, along with a solar system population totals that would astound us today.

I like to imagine a trillion living humans (or our descendant species) populating our solar system 1000 years from now.

Maybe I am wrong and profit motives alone will be sufficient to get us into space but then again maybe not. But if we are to be honest about humanity's future in space don't we have to try looking at the issue both ways?

= IF = profit motive will be sufficient, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about, right? Someone, somewhere will do it, sooner or later. Maybe us, maybe the Russians, maybe the Indians, who knows?

And I will cheer with great enthusiasm.

But I also want to hedge our bets, just in case profit motive alone is not enough to get us there. Anything wrong with that?

Posted by Bill White at June 24, 2004 11:29 AM

It depends on what kinds of things one worries about. It could be that the Islamonuts will get their wish and create a lot of damage to our technological infrastructure before we can break out. Anyway, some of us want it to happen soon enough for us to enjoy it, not just happen sometime.

But I also want to hedge our bets, just in case profit motive alone is not enough to get us there. Anything wrong with that?

It depends on what you're doing to hedge the bet. If it inhibits the development of private space in order to make a bad bet (i.e. that the government is going to somehow reduce the cost of access, in defiance of history and theory), then there's something wrong with that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 24, 2004 11:35 AM

Rand makes a good point vis a vis the profit potential of outer space and the lack of interest by the major aerospace companies.

Offer a billion dollars in US tax dollars to deliver three NASA astronauts to the Moon and sustain them for 6 weeks and I predict the "big boys" will play.

But what if Bechtel partners up with the Zenit people? I am okay with that and Dana Rohrbacher appears to be okay with that but are the rest of us okay with that?

An American company forming a partership with the Ukrainians to put NASA astronauts on the Moon to win a prize?

Posted by Bill White at June 24, 2004 11:39 AM

Offer a billion dollars in US tax dollars to deliver three NASA astronauts to the Moon and sustain them for 6 weeks and I predict the "big boys" will play.

Nope. As I said, you don't understand what business they're in.

Maybe ten billion, but not a billion. They won't go for it until the risk is essentially zero, and even with a higher pot, they won't risk being beaten by someone else. No large publicly-owned company would do it.

Posted by Rnd Simberg at June 24, 2004 11:43 AM

Never underestimate the power of greed! Did you ever read Heinlein's book "The Man Who Sold The Moon"? There is a huge chunk of real estate out there just waiting to be exploited by the right guy (or gal). You can take it for gospel that there is some way to make a lot of bucks (or shekles, or yen, NO euros) out there. The only problem is that no one yet understands what it is. Look at the money being made in the space industry today. Nobody even thought it was possible 50 years ago! Many people never thought the Wright Brother's little hobby would ever amount to anything. Space Ship One is important because it's the first private enteupreneurial step into space. Neither Burt nor Paul are starry eyed idealists. They have both made significant money following their own star. I wouldn't bet against them.

Posted by John F. at June 24, 2004 11:52 AM

Good point. I stand corrected and concur on the above. Cost plus or bust, right?

Okay, I now like the billion dollar prize idea even better than before.

Posted by Bill White at June 24, 2004 11:57 AM

Well the fact that space access is heading toward privatization won't we need to find a way to self sustain the industry without having people chase after one prize to the next? Then one might as well start calling them discount cost-minus contracts instead of prizes.

Posted by Hefty at June 24, 2004 01:14 PM

One thing to note with the big boys(such as Boeing) is that the dreamers/engineers no longer run the place, only the bean counters. There is no way that the 747 would have been started with the current "leadership" due to the enormous risk that Boeing took in the 60's to make it happen. I'm frankly surprised that the 7E7 is going ahead, but that is only because they're spreading the risk and because Airbus is eating Boeing alive.
I'm afraid that a limiting factor for space companies will be the number of technical people-see AW&ST's letters and articles about lack of people going into aerospace engineering because of low pay and current lack of jobs. It's frustrating for me because I'm an unemployed Mech. Designer with some space experience who can't find anything technical right now and over the last year.
But even if Mr. Rutan doesn't win the X-Prize, it's nice to see all the activity taking place under the radar.

Posted by Don at June 24, 2004 02:53 PM

Bill,
According to your logic every company would be in every other companies business and no company would ever be put out of business by an upstart. IBM didn't build the Apple computer. Apple did. Did the fact that IBM ignored the personal computer for so long mean that there was no profit in personal computers?

It would do everyone here some real good if you were to read Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" and "Innovator's Solution" before pontificating on whether there is or is not profit to be found in space.

Posted by Michael Mealling at June 24, 2004 03:20 PM

Rand, the reference to the pot of gold/platinum undoubtedly refers to asteroid mining.

Actually, I do think there will be profit in asteroid mining. Fairly early, low delta-v asteroids could be reached by oversized ion-drive "sample return" spacecraft. The material could be used to bootstrap orbital space operations. Later, some metals could be returned to Earth.

Also, while it is dangerous to assume specific orbital manufacturing tasks, microgravity would be very useful if Earth to orbit travel was more reliable. I expect there will be a great deal of orbital manufacturing.

I disagree with the article’s suggested goals: I'd like to see a prize for a reusable, low operational cost earth to orbit spacecraft, a prize for low cost orbital space stations, prizes for methods of making station and other in-space operations safer and less expensive.

Right now, there are just far too many unknowns for business to jump at "maybes." We need to fix that. Once with have an orbital infrastructure and reliable inexpensive space flight, the rest will fall into place.

Posted by VR at June 24, 2004 05:33 PM

I think that there will be profit from asteroid mining as well, particularly from platinum group metals. I just don't think that that's "ripe, low-hanging fruit" nor need it be to make a business case.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 24, 2004 05:38 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the biggest moneymaker in the western U.S. turned out not to be fur, or gold, or timber, or cattle.

It was land.

And guess what the government used to encourage the construction of the railroads?

The railroaders found their raw materials where they were, but the thing that made the dollar signs appear in their eyes was the prospect of the markets that would develop out there. It also made the railroaders the biggest promoters of western settlement.

And yet this prize was given to the railroaders at a time when it was so cheap the government could just give it away, and people who were using land to grow cattle never considered most of it worth owning -- unless it had water on it. You could control a lot of land by owning the waterholes...

I can foresee the builders of private spaceflight eventually being incentived with something they'll value above a measly few billion dollars.

Posted by McGehee at June 25, 2004 08:29 AM

Hear! Hear! McGehee. I think the railroad analogy is perfect. That's exactly what the government needs to do with space. Claim everything out there and then give it away to the developers. This will spur other nations to get out there as well and spur this nation further to get ahead of them. I say, Out of all those ridiculous space treaties right now!

Posted by Jardinero1 at June 25, 2004 01:33 PM

The 'big boys' have got a use for space. For now it is just orbital space - but you know there's people searching for better access to near Earth space. So every year there is real science, and real engineering being performed all over the darn place in order to make the cost of a payload-to-orbit cheaper.

If the prize was instead 'First person to land on Ceres can _have_ it', that sounds like a serious prize.

Posted by Al at June 26, 2004 06:34 PM

Post a comment