I had a first on Friday night--a Lileks-like moment. I'm often recognized by my name badge at space conferences, but when I checked in at the American counter at LAX on Friday night, the agent recognized my name on my driver's license, and asked if I was the space blogger. He told me that space was supposed to be about exploration, not a jobs program. I told him that it actually was a jobs program, but that it should be about space settlement.

Anyway, thanks for the service--usually I have to schlep my bag over to the X-ray myself, but he told me that for Fort Lauderdale, he could put it on the conveyor behind him.

If it's not about jobs, it will likely be canceled altogether.

Sam has a point. If you want to have an American aerospace industry, then that industry needs to be subsidized by the government. This has been true since there WAS an aerospace industry; it will be true forever.

Why the aversion to something that could actually do something while it employs people, instead of flying one or two missions total a year?

If aerospace engineers are a good thing, a resource that we want to keep, then it's necessary to spend money to keep them. This money will NOT come from private industry.

Thus far, NewSpace is the whim of a few ultra-rich men. What happens when the next shiny toy comes down the pike? Maybe John Carmack's ready to give up and go back to playing with race-cars. Human spaceflight does not have a business benefit of any kid--which means that money spent on it is either coerced (tax-funded) or frivolous (personal entertainment.)

You talk about how private industry is the only plausible path for space development. That's garbage. Private industry's interest in space is confined to telephones and television--and even that is giving way to ground-based cable. If private industry were going to save human spaceflight, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation because there'd already be orbital factories.

Human spaceflight does not have a business benefit of any kid--which means that money spent on it is either coerced (tax-funded) or frivolous (personal entertainment.)

So, "personal entertainment" has no "business benefit of any kind"?

Happy stockholders of companies like the Disney Corporation, not to mention the owners of Vegas ca-sinos, will be surprised to hear that.

So you're actually suggesting that human spaceflight is nothing more than a thrill ride? Well, that's fine, but just remember that the next time someone gets rolling on a sermon about how Space Is Really Important. Make sure to point out that it's not, after all, important, except as a tourist attraction. Something like the World's Largest Ball Of Twine; you go to space just to say that you did it.

There is value in tourism, but there's plenty of terrestrial tourism that's more fulfilling and less expensive than a suborbital ballistic hop.

And if you depend on the whim of the public for your money, be aware that whims can change.

So you're actually suggesting that human spaceflight is nothing more than a thrill ride?

No.

Any more straw men?

I had a big response here, but then I realized that you simply missed what I was saying.

My point is that there are two source of funding for space technology development: The government (taxes), and private investors whose whim leads them to space. And I cannot see the latter as anything but personal entertainment.

I'm not sure what your response is supposed to mean. Are you saying that entertainment isn't a major source of NewSpace funding? Or are you saying that it's okay for NewSpace to depend on the whims of the idle rich, because media companies make money from entertainment?

The government (taxes), and private investors whose whim leads them to space. And I cannot see the latter as anything but personal entertainment.

I don't know how broad your definition of "personal entertainment" is (Attending an opera? Visiting an art museum? Climbing a mountain?), but if so, so what? That doesn't mean it's not a business.

Are you saying that entertainment isn't a major source of NewSpace funding?

Yes, I am saying that. A major source of NewSpace funding is from investors. It may be that their initial market is entertainment, but again, so what?

Or are you saying that it's okay for NewSpace to depend on the whims of the idle rich, because media companies make money from entertainment?

Yes, I'm saying that as well. Why isn't that OK? Why is it any worse than depending on anyone else's "whims"?

Rand, if I may circle back to the original post, it's notable that the gentleman on the other side of the counter referred to you as a "spaceblogger" and not "famous neocon". You made your name as a space blogger (at least from where I stand). So, while your expose of Clintons and Sandy Burglar is entertaining and appreciated, your expose of Mark Wittington is more so. Space is what you bring to the table. Just wanted to make sure you realize that.