Answers will be in general. I can not manage to quote exact
paragraphs in internet yet.
1. I have been very glad to hear that space programs has positive sum
but I have suspects about it. I know that total cost was more than a
trillion dollars at 1985 only for USA and ex-USSR. It may not be paid
back in 15 years. Even sum is negative I have been and will be a
spacist during all my life. (I live in Turkey and my country is a
Thirld World country. Space topic is not interesting for public even
we have our own satellites.) This comes from my mental conditions. A
personel qouestion: Why are each of you spacists? (I know that I
won't be able to go to the space and I have learned to be used to it.)
2. Space colonies can not have more than, let me say, 10,000 people
totally in the next 100 years. They can not be self-sufficient in
that scale. It means we will live discontinuities during colonization.
3. Cultural problem: I always ask why human being has gone to space
in the last century, not before, not later. I don't belive in
historic determinism. To me cause-effect relationship for timing
comes from West Europe's history between 1500-1950. First stage was
imperialism (1500-1750), second stage was industrialization (1750-
2000). It does not belong to USA and ex-USSR 1950-2000. Cold War was
only the last step: Phenomenonization (or realization).
That is enough for second step. It is strange to me the same data can
be oppositely interpreted by me and you.
rehaulku@... wrote:
> paragraphs in internet yet.
> 1. I have been very glad to hear that space programs has positive sum
> but I have suspects about it. I know that total cost was more than a
> trillion dollars at 1985 only for USA and ex-USSR.
Most of that was probably going to the moon, or the
space shuttle, which was a bad idea with hindsight.
Going to the moon was a huge cost. America
spent some enormous amount of its GDP for many years,
like 3% or more on that. You can't expect a white
elephant like the moon to break even; although it
was a glorious undertaking nonetherless.
> 2. Space colonies can not have more than, let me say, 10,000 people
> totally in the next 100 years. They can not be self-sufficient in
> that scale. It means we will live discontinuities during colonization.
I don't see that point at all. First some technologies are very non
linear e.g. the internet; 10 years ago almost noone knew what the
internet was (I was on it though). I think we are approaching some
more discontinuities: choose from 3D printers, advanced robotics,
very much cheaper rocketry ($10,000 for a return trip to space),
bigtime biotech and lots of other things. I think that space is
about 15-20 years away from a big discontinuity.
Secondly at present space is growing at ~15% a year. Therefore there
should be more than 1 million people in space by the end of this
century.
> 3. Cultural problem: I always ask why human being has gone to space
> in the last century, not before, not later. I don't belive in
> historic determinism.
There was an interesting discussion on that in sci.space.policy
a while back. The bottom line was that certain key technologies
didn't exist until 1870 or so; before that there was no chance
of interplanetary travel, although the chinese had come up with
some interesting weaponry (something that sounds like a combustion
chamber full of gunpowder- i.e. a solid rocket) but they lacked
the rocket nozzle- that had to wait for Goddard to apply.
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, Ian Woollard
> rehaulku@h... wrote:
>
> > Answers will be in general. I can not manage to quote exact
> > paragraphs in internet yet.
> > 1. I have been very glad to hear that space programs has positive
sum
> > but I have suspects about it. I know that total cost was more
than a
> > trillion dollars at 1985 only for USA and ex-USSR.
>
> Most of that was probably going to the moon, or the
> space shuttle, which was a bad idea with hindsight.
>
> Going to the moon was a huge cost. America
> spent some enormous amount of its GDP for many years,
> like 3% or more on that. You can't expect a white
> elephant like the moon to break even; although it
> was a glorious undertaking nonetherless.
>
have been set up by now. Of course the costs were enormous, they did
it as a one-shot deal. There was no plan in place to have regular
trips to the moon, only the race to get there first.
> > 2. Space colonies can not have more than, let me say, 10,000
people
> > totally in the next 100 years. They can not be self-sufficient in
> > that scale. It means we will live discontinuities during
colonization.
>
> I don't see that point at all. First some technologies are very non
> linear e.g. the internet; 10 years ago almost noone knew what the
> internet was (I was on it though). I think we are approaching some
> more discontinuities: choose from 3D printers, advanced robotics,
> very much cheaper rocketry ($10,000 for a return trip to space),
> bigtime biotech and lots of other things. I think that space is
> about 15-20 years away from a big discontinuity.
>
> Secondly at present space is growing at ~15% a year. Therefore there
> should be more than 1 million people in space by the end of this
> century.
>
Once it becomes affordable for the average person, space expansion
will skyrocket (I couldn't resist, sorry). A parallel to consider is
the advances in computers: at first, it was the domain only of
governments and very large companies, and the real expansion didn't
begin until a personal computer was affordable to the average person.
I believe the 1 million estimate to be extremely conservative,
barring disaster.
> > 3. Cultural problem: I always ask why human being has gone to
space
> > in the last century, not before, not later. I don't belive in
> > historic determinism.
>
> There was an interesting discussion on that in sci.space.policy
> a while back. The bottom line was that certain key technologies
> didn't exist until 1870 or so; before that there was no chance
> of interplanetary travel, although the chinese had come up with
> some interesting weaponry (something that sounds like a combustion
> chamber full of gunpowder- i.e. a solid rocket) but they lacked
> the rocket nozzle- that had to wait for Goddard to apply.
Thank you, Robert Goddard!
:) ed
The spin off industries associated with the space program is worth
trillions. The entire computer industry has its roots in the space
program of the sixties. Many of the consumer electronics of today
would have been impossible if not for space research.
satellite industry may never be worth a trillion dollars, but the
materials being developed for use in satellites has uses that are
worth trillions of dollars.
The uses are in almost every product out there, from food stuff to
cars, to electronics.
Bill
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, rehaulku@h... wrote:
> Answers will be in general. I can not manage to quote exact
> paragraphs in internet yet.
> 1. I have been very glad to hear that space programs has positive
sum
> but I have suspects about it. I know that total cost was more than a
> trillion dollars at 1985 only for USA and ex-USSR. It may not be
paid
> back in 15 years. Even sum is negative I have been and will be a
> spacist during all my life. (I live in Turkey and my country is a
> Thirld World country. Space topic is not interesting for public even
> we have our own satellites.) This comes from my mental conditions. A
> personel qouestion: Why are each of you spacists? (I know that I
> won't be able to go to the space and I have learned to be used to
it.)
> 2. Space colonies can not have more than, let me say, 10,000 people
> totally in the next 100 years. They can not be self-sufficient in
> that scale. It means we will live discontinuities during
colonization.
> 3. Cultural problem: I always ask why human being has gone to space
> in the last century, not before, not later. I don't belive in
> historic determinism. To me cause-effect relationship for timing
> comes from West Europe's history between 1500-1950. First stage
was
> imperialism (1500-1750), second stage was industrialization (1750-
> 2000). It does not belong to USA and ex-USSR 1950-2000. Cold War was
> only the last step: Phenomenonization (or realization).
> That is enough for second step. It is strange to me the same data
can
--- In spacesettlers@egroups.com, rehaulku@h... wrote:
> Answers will be in general. I can not manage to quote exact
> paragraphs in internet yet.
page at http://www.egroups.com/group/spacesettlers and sign in. Click
on the Messages tag on the left, then click on any message to read
it. There is a Reply button at the top of each message, that I how I
replied to you.
:) ed