Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
space development. What are the most immediate needs? What can be
reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
years? What changes to policy/laws need to be made to better enssure
commercial space operations by 2013?

Jack

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:26 AM, jdr7181 wrote:

> Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
> participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
> space development. What are the most immediate needs?

Much better launch vehicles

> What can be
> reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
> years?

Communication satellites, Earth resources satellites, sub-orbital
tourist flights, ISS rich-guy tourism.

> What changes to policy/laws need to be made to better enssure
> commercial space operations by 2013?

Devote half of NASA's budget to developing better launch vehicles.
- Develop materials and propulsion
- Buy many future launches from developers. They use the
guaranteed business to raise capital.
- Use the launches to test the vehicle and loft technology
demonstration satellites
- Gov't only pays if the launches happen (pay reduced amount,
say 50%, for launch failures)
- Provide test facilities at marginal cost (government pays
development and overhead)
- Simplify and standardize test facility use
- Provide launch pads at marginal cost
Provide catastrophic insurance for launch failures

>
> Jack
>
The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

jdr7181 wrote:

>Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
>participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
>space development. What are the most immediate needs?
>
Money. More specifically, an assured market in the 100's of billions of
dollars. Given that businesses generally don't do 10-year plans, we're
probably talking about a government program; so the most immediate need
is strong government funding for space activities. If it's the US we're
talking about, double NASA's budget, increase DoD space efforts, and get
DoE, NSF, and other departments involved in the space business. If it's
Europe, do the same with ESA, fund Galileo, fund the Aurora program to
the fullest, give scientists lots of money for space telescopes and the
like. Same in Japan. I think India, Russia and China are probably doing
about all they can manage in space right now.

The bureaucratic turf wars that have crippled NASA the last 30 years are
a simple consequence of declining budgets. Reverse that trend, and
there'll be plenty of room for good stuff to happen.

If you don't want to spend more tax dollars, get a commercial company to
provide the services you want (lunar outpost, scientific resupply, etc.)
in exchange for monopoly profits on other services (launch, LEO/GEO
servicing). Or establish some form of property rights that will allow
guaranteed "rents" for a while that won't be picked off by some cheap
new kid on the block.

My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market isn't
going to get us there all by itself.

> What can be
>reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
>years?
>
Not sure what your parenthetical (commercially) is referring to. But we
got to the Moon in 8 years in the 60's; we can probably get a base set
up there in 5 years or less now. Orbiting hotels, robotic visits to
asteroids; all should be relatively easy for commercial companies in the
next few years if the money/market is there.

> What changes to policy/laws need to be made to better enssure
>commercial space operations by 2013?
>

Other than strong government funding, we need some way of guaranteeing
the market; a property rights system or monopoly grant of some sort.
Alan Wasser's "Space Settlement Initiative" http://spacesettlement.org/
isn't a bad start.

Arthur Smith (apsmith@...)

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:26 AM, jdr7181 wrote:
>
> > Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
> > participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
> > space development. What are the most immediate needs?
>
> Much better launch vehicles

Could this need be better phrased, "Cheaper access to space?" Or are
you referring to something about launch vehicles other than the high
expense?

> > What can be
> > reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
> > years?
>
> Communication satellites, Earth resources satellites, sub-orbital
> tourist flights, ISS rich-guy tourism.

These are all available now, correct?

Jack

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> jdr7181 wrote:
>
> >Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
> >participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
> >space development. What are the most immediate needs?
> >
> Money. More specifically, an assured market in the 100's of
billions of
> dollars. Given that businesses generally don't do 10-year plans,
we're
> probably talking about a government program;

No, but nor am I taking about a business program either. Just
generally, what do we, the collective space advocacy community, need
to focus on in the next 10 years to make space commerce happen?

Ask yourself this: Where do I want the state of space to be in 25
years? Orbital infrastructure? Space-based industries? Larger space
station/more space stations? Moon Base? Mars Base? A human population
in space (or at least, not on Earth) exceeding 10,000 persons? Etc?

Now, what do we need to make your view of space (25 years from now) a
reality? Cheaper access to LEO? Business-friendly space law/policy?
Etc?

> My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market isn't
> going to get us there all by itself.

In other words, there is absolutely, positively no way for the
private sector (business) to "open the space frontier" to commerce?
Government has to be involved?

> > What can be
> >reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
> >years?
> >
> Not sure what your parenthetical (commercially) is referring to.

Not government - for profit. money, money, money.

> But we
> got to the Moon in 8 years in the 60's; we can probably get a base
set
> up there in 5 years or less now. Orbiting hotels, robotic visits to
> asteroids; all should be relatively easy for commercial companies
in the
> next few years if the money/market is there.

That's the real problem to me, the market. Or more appropriately, the
lack of a market.

Jack

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 12:48 PM, jdr7181 wrote:

> --- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:26 AM, jdr7181 wrote:
>>
>>> Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
>>> participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
>>> space development. What are the most immediate needs?
>>
>> Much better launch vehicles
>
> Could this need be better phrased, "Cheaper access to space?"

Yes. Cheaper and more reliable.

>
>>> What can be
>>> reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
>>> years?
>>
>> Communication satellites, Earth resources satellites, sub-orbital
>> tourist flights, ISS rich-guy tourism.
>
> These are all available now, correct?

Not sub-orbital tourism, although there is a Russian company working on
it.

Personally, I don't see any other external markets (other than space
companies selling to other space companies) for space products at
competitive prices. It would be nice if I were wrong.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

jdr7181 wrote:

>--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
>
>>jdr7181 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>What are the most immediate needs?
>>>>
>>>>
>>Money. More specifically, an assured market in the 100's of
>>
>>
>billions of
>
>>dollars. [...]
>>
>
>[...] Just
>generally, what do we, the collective space advocacy community, need
>to focus on in the next 10 years to make space commerce happen?
>
I stand by my first answer: money. Whether government or private
spending, from taxpayers or consumers, there needs to be a lot more
money being spent on space than there is right now. If it's to be purely
private, we'll need massive marketing campaigns. If it's to be some mix,
something like the Space Settlement Initiative is needed, allowing a
small number of companies a monopoly on celestial real estate (or some
other quantifiable asset), in return for establishing the infrastructure
we want. If mostly public, which is probably the easiest course for a
space advocacy community push, an increase in government spending on
space is in order.

Right now, if you live in the US, NASA spends about $50 a year of your
tax money. Except for the moronic anti-government types, that's an
incredible deal. Why not push to double it, over, say, 5 years? The
science community has successfully pushed several times to double the
funding for the National Science Foundation. Health researchers get huge
increases for the National Institutes for Health. What's wrong with
space advocates that they can't advocate for space spending?

If you really want it to be private, that means, instead of the $50
going to NASA from every person in the country, only those actually
interested in space (or whatever is being marketed) will have to
contribute proportionally more. Say we manage to get 100,000 people (the
approximate size of the space advocacy community) enthusiastic enough to
contribute to a major space push. If it's to be at all effective it's
going to have to spend on a NASA scale - for a $10 billion/year project
that means each person will have to contribute $100,000/year!!! I'm
afraid you'll have to count me out of that though - I don't make that
kind of cash.

Ok, here's a test, to see who's truly committed to commercial space
development. You can't do $100,000/year, I understand that. Can you do a
one-time $16.95 contribution? That's all TransOrbital (the first truly
commercial deep space mission) is asking:

https://www.transorbital.net/catalog/index.html

and you get your message included in a lunar time capsule as well. So,
how many of you have purchased one of these? I happened to get the
deluxe package...

Anybody who hasn't done at least this is, de facto, an advocate for
letting the government do all the spending on space.

>
>Ask yourself this: Where do I want the state of space to be in 25
>years? Orbital infrastructure? Space-based industries? Larger space
>station/more space stations? Moon Base? Mars Base? A human population
>in space (or at least, not on Earth) exceeding 10,000 persons? Etc?
>
All of the above, of course...

>Now, what do we need to make your view of space (25 years from now) a
>reality? Cheaper access to LEO? Business-friendly space law/policy?
>Etc?
>
A change in attitude among the population in general, and among the
space advocacy community in particular, to put their money where their
dreams are. Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
corporations...

>
>>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market isn't
>>going to get us there all by itself.
>>
>>
>
>In other words, there is absolutely, positively no way for the
>private sector (business) to "open the space frontier" to commerce?
>Government has to be involved?
>
Unless a miraculous change in attitude toward space development happens
to some huge number of people (including all the so-called space
advocates), government involvement seems to be the only option. It
doesn't have to be massive involvement, however; all that's needed are a
few well-regulated monopolies...

That's my opinion, anyway...

Arthur

Arthur P. Smith wrote:

>Right now, if you live in the US, NASA spends about $50 a year of your
>tax money. Except for the moronic anti-government types, that's an
>incredible deal. Why not push to double it, over, say, 5 years? The
>science community has successfully pushed several times to double the
>funding for the National Science Foundation. Health researchers get huge
>increases for the National Institutes for Health. What's wrong with
>space advocates that they can't advocate for space spending?
>
NASA is not the same as 'space spending'. NASA is a tiny fraction of space, and getting smaller all the time. Governmental operations grow at only the same rate as the population grow. Commercial operations tend to grow exponentially. NASA's spending is already a small minority. Perhaps rightfully. Still NASA does good research IMHO.

>If you really want it to be private, that means, instead of the $50
>going to NASA from every person in the country, only those actually
>interested in space (or whatever is being marketed) will have to
>contribute proportionally more. Say we manage to get 100,000 people (the
>approximate size of the space advocacy community) enthusiastic enough to
>contribute to a major space push. If it's to be at all effective it's
>going to have to spend on a NASA scale - for a $10 billion/year project
>that means each person will have to contribute $100,000/year!!!
>
The question isn't what you spend. It's what you launch. I've seen
figures that suggest that the true cost of launching a man, even with
low tech expendables can be as low as $100,000 per person. And that's
low tech. NASA might theoretically achieve 40x this with the space
shuttle, which is 'high tech'.

>Ok, here's a test, to see who's truly committed to commercial space
>development. You can't do $100,000/year, I understand that. Can you do a
>one-time $16.95 contribution? That's all TransOrbital (the first truly
>commercial deep space mission) is asking:
>
>https://www.transorbital.net/catalog/index.html
>
>and you get your message included in a lunar time capsule as well. So,
>how many of you have purchased one of these? I happened to get the
>deluxe package...
>
>Anybody who hasn't done at least this is, de facto, an advocate for
>letting the government do all the spending on space.
>
The world is not either-or.

>A change in attitude among the population in general, and among the
>space advocacy community in particular, to put their money where their
>dreams are. Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
>corporations...
>
You should not assume that America or it's law are the world.

>Unless a miraculous change in attitude toward space development happens
>to some huge number of people (including all the so-called space
>advocates),
>
No. That will not happen, or atleast not without visible and
cost-effective improvements in space access.

> government involvement seems to be the only option. It
>doesn't have to be massive involvement,
>
No. That will not happen. Space is already mostly commercial. Manned
space isn't of course. We need that to change.

> however; all that's needed are a
>few well-regulated monopolies...
>
No that must not occur. Monopolies are nearly always inefficient.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Ian Woollard wrote:

> > apsmith wrote:
> >[...] What's wrong with
> >space advocates that they can't advocate for space spending?
> >
> NASA is not the same as 'space spending'.
> NASA is a tiny fraction of space, and getting smaller all the time.

So are you advocating for commercial spending - are you spending
any of your own money on space right now?

Anyway, NASA's fraction got substantially larger last year as
the general "space" market was shattered by the collapse of the telcos. And
it never was anywhere near "tiny". Go ask any of the launch companies
how much business they're doing right now.

But communications satellites, which is pretty much all
"commercial space" amounts to right now (ok, there's a bit of remote
sensing) is a big dead end for space settlement. Commercial tourism?
The only launches that have taken humans into space so far are
the government-funded NASA and Russian programs. Given that the X-prize
is still a far cry from getting people into orbit, and that
it seems to be taking years for any commercial entity to even get
that far, I don't see any hope for that (without government support)
in the next decade.

It makes absolutely no difference to the market for commercial
space settlement that there is $50 billion in commercial satellite
activity, since there seems to be $0 crossover.

> The question isn't what you spend. It's what you launch. I've seen
> figures that suggest that the true cost of launching a man, even with
> low tech expendables can be as low as $100,000 per person. And that's
> low tech. NASA might theoretically achieve 40x this with the space
> shuttle, which is 'high tech'.

Currently the minimum cost for a launch to orbit appears to be about
$20 million. You can pay less if you piggyback on another launch,
but that's about the best price you can get on the commercial market
for an entire launch right now. And the competition recently between
Ariane, SeaLaunch, the Russians, Ukrainians, Atlas, Delta, etc. has
been very intense. If you think you can launch for $100,000 per person,
that's 200 people you're blasting off with in one of these current
systems. Sounds a bit beyond anything realistic within the next 10 years...

Now launch costs do improve with time; probably we can expect
somewhere around 20% per year. Some of the "rocket-plane" concepts
like XCOR or Armadillo Aero may be able to dramatically cut costs
and improve reliability a few years down the road - but right now
those guys aren't even close to X-prize contention, so that's
pure speculation what it's really going to cost.

> >Ok, here's a test, to see who's truly committed to commercial space
> >development. You can't do $100,000/year, I understand that. Can you do a
> >one-time $16.95 contribution? That's all TransOrbital (the first truly
> >commercial deep space mission) is asking:
> >
> >https://www.transorbital.net/catalog/index.html
> >
> >and you get your message included in a lunar time capsule as well. So,
> >how many of you have purchased one of these? I happened to get the
> >deluxe package...
> >
> >Anybody who hasn't done at least this is, de facto, an advocate for
> >letting the government do all the spending on space.
> >
> The world is not either-or.

Let's see, there's $50 billion in commercial space activity devoted
to communications satellites. There's $14 billion at NASA, and a few
billion from other space agencies, devoted to scientific and
human activities in space. And there's ONE private firm that so far
is doing ANYTHING (and it's not the dead-end of communications)
beyond low earth orbit. And you can contribute to its efforts for
far less than any other space effort would cost you. We've heard all
the mouthing off - where's the money?

> [...]
> > however; all that's needed are a
> >few well-regulated monopolies...
> >
> No that must not occur. Monopolies are nearly always inefficient.
>

Yes, but they are also effective. Which may be more important right now.
There's a reason we have patents and copyrights; why we recognize
property rights. Those are government "monopoly" grants. The only
comparable thing in space is ITU grants of spectrum and geosynchronous
orbit slots. Which has led, as you point out, to a lot of commercial
activity. We need something similar to promote space settlement.

Arthur

Arthur P. Smith wrote:

>So are you advocating for commercial spending - are you spending
>any of your own money on space right now?
>
I have done so.

>Anyway, NASA's fraction got substantially larger last year as
>the general "space" market was shattered by the collapse of the telcos. And
>it never was anywhere near "tiny". Go ask any of the launch companies
>how much business they're doing right now.
>
So? Now is just a point in time. NASA still isn't the biggest part of
the market even now.
It's more or less impossible for NASA to outgrow the space markets. A
socialist, extremely
wasteful organisation like NASA shows no signs of going into space in a
big way. Space is
not a natural government monopoly; although NASA tries to make it look
that way.

>But communications satellites, which is pretty much all
>"commercial space" amounts to right now (ok, there's a bit of remote
>sensing) is a big dead end for space settlement. Commercial tourism?
>The only launches that have taken humans into space so far are
>the government-funded NASA and Russian programs. Given that the X-prize
>is still a far cry from getting people into orbit, and that
>it seems to be taking years for any commercial entity to even get
>that far, I don't see any hope for that (without government support)
>in the next decade.
>
Oh I don't know. There was hope at the beginning of this decade, with
Rotary Rocket. They
really only failed due to market conditions varying at a critical time.

And private enterprise certainly put Tito in space- not NASA; that was
NOT funded by
Russia- in fact Tito funded them!

>It makes absolutely no difference to the market for commercial
>space settlement that there is $50 billion in commercial satellite
>activity, since there seems to be $0 crossover.
>
It may do if there is a cost pressure. Currently there is none. It's a
bit of a perverse market really.

>>The question isn't what you spend. It's what you launch. I've seen
>>figures that suggest that the true cost of launching a man, even with
>>low tech expendables can be as low as $100,000 per person. And that's
>>low tech. NASA might theoretically achieve 40x this with the space
>>shuttle, which is 'high tech'.
>>
>>
>Currently the minimum cost for a launch to orbit appears to be about
>$20 million. You can pay less if you piggyback on another launch,
>but that's about the best price you can get on the commercial market
>for an entire launch right now.
>
Less. Tito paid about $15 million. The rocket only costs $5 million.

> And the competition recently between
>Ariane, SeaLaunch, the Russians, Ukrainians, Atlas, Delta, etc. has
>been very intense. If you think you can launch for $100,000 per person,
>that's 200 people you're blasting off with in one of these current
>systems. Sounds a bit beyond anything realistic within the next 10 years...
>
No, no. Low tech. Nothing high ISP or particularly cutting edge. In fact
the opposite.
We could do this in 3 years. There's nothing magical.

>Now launch costs do improve with time; probably we can expect
>somewhere around 20% per year. Some of the "rocket-plane" concepts
>like XCOR or Armadillo Aero may be able to dramatically cut costs
>and improve reliability a few years down the road - but right now
>those guys aren't even close to X-prize contention, so that's
>pure speculation what it's really going to cost.
>
No. I've seen plans for MCD. Also I've run my own cost models for a two
stager. I've had
some go as low as ~200/kg. Reusability is key. But not partial
reusability. Not reusing
something that would be cheaper to replace. I believe that SSTO is a red
herring with
current tech; it quite possibly precludes reusability in fact.

And Armadillo just announced they are going for it. So, wrong again.
XCOR haven't announced
but it's possible they're helping out Burt Rutan is my guess; and he has
an X vehicle.

>>The world is not either-or.
>>
>>
>
>Let's see, there's $50 billion in commercial space activity devoted
>to communications satellites. There's $14 billion at NASA, and a few
>billion from other space agencies, devoted to scientific and
>human activities in space. And there's ONE private firm that so far
>is doing ANYTHING (and it's not the dead-end of communications)
>beyond low earth orbit. And you can contribute to its efforts for
>far less than any other space effort would cost you. We've heard all
>the mouthing off - where's the money?
>
Why should I in the UK contribute money to an American firm? I see no
evidence that they
are cutting launch costs. And I have attended conferences with my own
money with an aim
to cut launch costs.

>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>however; all that's needed are a
>>>few well-regulated monopolies...
>>>
>>No that must not occur. Monopolies are nearly always inefficient.
>>
>Yes, but they are also effective.
>
What are you smoking? 500 million per launch is anything but effective.
You can launch
about 10 Protons for that. And the irony is that the Russian space work
is far more
efficient than the American's. The Russians do/did socialism better than
the Americans ;-)

And don't give me any nonsense about Russian wages...that doesn't
explain why they
are so much cheaper.

> Which may be more important right now.
>There's a reason we have patents
>
Yeah so corporations can use them to squelch competition and maintain
monopolies. Very useful.

> and copyrights;
>
Need something to keep the GPL going ;-)

> why we recognize
>property rights.
>
Sometimes governments do that. Sometimes they do not.

> Those are government "monopoly" grants.
>
It's arguable whether they improve our world. This is not self-evident.
I no longer believe
that patents are positive; certainly not for big companies. Individuals,
yes, perhaps.

> The only
>comparable thing in space is ITU grants of spectrum and geosynchronous
>orbit slots. Which has led, as you point out, to a lot of commercial
>activity.
>
> We need something similar to promote space settlement.
>
No. We need cheap, safe space launch. People will go. They like zero-g.
They like looking back
at the earth. People want to go to Mars.

Monopolies are bad in very much most cases. NASAs monopoly power such as
it is, has held space back
by probably 15 years.

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Ian Woollard wrote:

> >It makes absolutely no difference to the market for commercial
> >space settlement that there is $50 billion in commercial satellite
> >activity, since there seems to be $0 crossover.
> >
> It may do if there is a cost pressure. Currently there is none. It's a
> bit of a perverse market really.

Huh? Ariane vs. SeaLaunch vs. Proton vs. Atlas sees no cost pressure?
Telco companies see no cost pressure????

> >[...]
> Less. Tito paid about $15 million. The rocket only costs $5 million.

I wasn't referring to Tito. Anyway, if the Russians make that much
profit, how come they're always short of money? All the competitive
launch vehicles for multi-ton satellite launches that I've heard
about seem to be in the $20 million + range - up to $100 million
for the American vehicles. And of course $250 million for the shuttle.

> >[...]
> No, no. Low tech. Nothing high ISP or particularly cutting edge. In fact
> the opposite.
> We could do this in 3 years. There's nothing magical.

If you could do this in 3 years, go right ahead; there's a 10's of
billion dollar launch market just waiting for your innovation to
undercut all the other competitors out there. AT&T operated its
own line of ships for many years that ran undersea cables
at about $600 million a pop. Even if Boeing and LockMart aren't
interested in your innovation, there's a ton of other companies
that need those launch services that really do have the cash.
Worldcom just blew through about $10 billion in fake accounting;
surely there's room to develop and launch your miracle vehicle
where companies have that kind of cash floating around?

>
> >Now launch costs do improve with time; probably we can expect
> >somewhere around 20% per year. Some of the "rocket-plane" concepts
> >like XCOR or Armadillo Aero may be able to dramatically cut costs
> >and improve reliability a few years down the road - but right now
> >those guys aren't even close to X-prize contention, so that's
> >pure speculation what it's really going to cost.
> >
> No. I've seen plans for MCD. Also I've run my own cost models for a two
> stager. I've had
> some go as low as ~200/kg. Reusability is key. But not partial
> reusability. Not reusing
> something that would be cheaper to replace. I believe that SSTO is a red
> herring with
> current tech; it quite possibly precludes reusability in fact.
>
> And Armadillo just announced they are going for it. So, wrong again.

I said they weren't even close to X-prize contention. Close, to me,
means more than just an announcement - where are their FAA certifications?
Where are the detailed designs? When exactly will they have a prototype
flying and ready to test? There are 21 X-prize "teams" right now - see

http://www.xprize.org/teams/teams.html

Personally I love the rocketplane designs, and what they're trying
to accomplish. But getting the X prize just means reaching a certain
altitude - there's no velocity requirement, and that's really
a much bigger problem; and where silly things like high ISP
make the difference between 5% payload and 0.1% payload. Anyway,
when one of these teams actually launches a prototype, then it's
definitely time to get interested. My guess? 2005 before somebody
makes a full attempt; 2006 before somebody wins the prize. And
way beyond 2013 before this translates into lower cost to orbit.
But I'd be happy to be proved wrong....

>
> > [...transorbital.net...]
> >
> Why should I in the UK contribute money to an American firm? I see no
> evidence that they
> are cutting launch costs.

Oh, so now we're nationalistic? If it matters to you, Richard Perry,
on the TransOrbital board of directors, and actively involved in
the project, is a UK citizen. See:
http://www.transorbital.net/PressReleases/press000926.html
At least one other participant, that I know of, is from New Zealand.
It's an international project, though the company is US-based.

>And I have attended conferences with my own
> money with an aim
> to cut launch costs.

I've attended conferences too. As far as I can tell, the money I spent
went to airlines, hotels, and rental car companies. I don't think
a single cent went anywhere near a company that is working to
develop space infrastructure.

If your goal is cheaper access to space, then spend your money
there at least - invest in a micro-sat, find a project you
can join to purchase launch services (TransOrbital is at least
doing that, using the Ukrainian Dnipr vehicle for the first time).
Or invest venture capital in a company that you think can dramatically
reduce those costs.

The big issue is money - so put it on the table. "Show me the money"
as the movie says.

By the way, I am not associated with TransOrbital except through
having met one of their people (Paul Blase) and sent them a bit
of my money as a contribution - it just irritates me that so
many people whine about NASA and the state of the launch industry
and space development without contributing anything to the
fundamental problem - lack of financial resources. If you
don't like TransOrbital, invest in Jim Benson's SpaceDev, or
SpaceHab, or one of the other small space-settlement-oriented
companies. But come on - for $16.95, can you really go wrong?

>
> >>>however; all that's needed are a
> >>>few well-regulated monopolies...
> >>>
> >>No that must not occur. Monopolies are nearly always inefficient.
> >>
> >Yes, but they are also effective.
> >
> What are you smoking? 500 million per launch is anything but effective.

NASA isn't a commercial monopoly; that's not what I was referring to.

> > Which may be more important right now.
> >There's a reason we have patents
> >
> Yeah so corporations can use them to squelch competition and maintain
> monopolies. Very useful.
>

The argument of the pharmaceutical companies in favor of patents is really
unassailable - if they didn't have guaranteed monopoly profits
for some period of time, they would never be able to do the hundreds
of millions of dollars worth of R&D it takes to bring a new
drug to market. No monopoly, no R&D investment, no new drugs.

"Monopoly" in this sense is really just a recognition of a certain
kind of property right. One of the primary reasons for a lack
of private investment in space, both R&D and infrastructure, is that there
is no property rights regime. Other than for telecommunications,
for which there actually is (or was) substantial investment.

While this may contradict your pre-determined ideological biases,
there are really only three choices here: (1) Increased direct
government spending on space, (2) New monopoly grants by government
to private entities to promote space development, or (3) waiting
many more decades for things to start happening.

Arthur

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 12:48 PM, jdr7181 wrote:
>
> > --- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 10:26 AM, jdr7181 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Let's say for the sake of argument you have all been asked to
> >>> participate in a project to define a 10-year plan for commercial
> >>> space development. What are the most immediate needs?
> >>
> >> Much better launch vehicles
> >
> > Could this need be better phrased, "Cheaper access to space?"
>
> Yes. Cheaper and more reliable.

I would add better use of existing systems to the list. At the very
least, NASA should be adding an Aft Cargo Carrier to the external
tank of the space shuttle, and taking that tank to orbit. They
should also look into the idea of mounting the orbiter main engines
to an ACC, and launching two ETs at one time (with four SRBs and no
orbiter): one carrying LOX and LH2 and the ACC, the other "dry",
containing supplies. Attach THAT to the ISS main struts at the SRB
beam and SRB stabilizer struts. If you have that kind of
pressurizable volume, then the ISS becomes a real science facility.

This is doable. Martin/Marietta engineers worked most of it out 30
years ago. The Michoud facility doesn't even need to retool anything
to build an ACC. The shuttle Orbiter weighs 250000 pounds (~114
tonnes), and an external tank (sans ACC) weighs 66000 pounds. We can
greatly increase the tonnage we take to space if we don't have to
bring it back down. The ISS has or can have a long enough backbone
to bolt to the ET. Both the "empty" fuel tank and the cargo tank
could bolt on to the ISS, along with 184000 pounds (~84 tonnes) of
ACC, engines, and supplies.

Once the ETs are pressurized (the LH2 tank would need to be drained
first... an interesting problem in orbit) to 1 atm, you have room for
dozens of astronauts to stay for a long time. The walls are much
thicker than the walls of the ISS. Liquid Nitrogen is easy to
store. It doesn't even need to be 1 atm. Calgary is 3440 feet (1048
meters) above sea level +- 100m; we seem to get along fine. So does
Denver.

How much would a flight like this cost compared to a shuttle flight?
I'm willing to bet it would be a lot less.

>
> >>> What can be
> >>> reasonably accomplished (commercially) in space over the next 10
> >>> years?
> >>
> >> Communication satellites, Earth resources satellites, sub-orbital
> >> tourist flights, ISS rich-guy tourism.
> >
> > These are all available now, correct?
>
> Not sub-orbital tourism, although there is a Russian company
working on
> it.
>
> Personally, I don't see any other external markets (other than
space
> companies selling to other space companies) for space products at
> competitive prices. It would be nice if I were wrong.
>

I think your answer is incomplete. Micro-gee manufacturing will be
very useful for pharmaceutical companies and nanotech. Space is a
unique environment; microgravity, extremes of heat and cold, vacuum,
observational quality, abundant energy and raw materials, and so on.
Take advantage of that. There is unlimited opportunity is space,
right now. All we have to do is do it.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> jdr7181 wrote:
> >--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> >>jdr7181 wrote:
> >>>>What are the most immediate needs?
> >>Money. More specifically, an assured market in the 100's of
> >>billions of dollars. [...]
> >[...] Just generally, what do we, the collective space advocacy
> > community, need
> >to focus on in the next 10 years to make space commerce happen?
> I stand by my first answer: money. Whether government or private
> spending, from taxpayers or consumers, there needs to be a lot more
> money being spent on space than there is right now. If it's to be
purely
> private, we'll need massive marketing campaigns. If it's to be some
mix,
> something like the Space Settlement Initiative is needed, allowing
a
> small number of companies a monopoly on celestial real estate (or
some
> other quantifiable asset), in return for establishing the
infrastructure
> we want. If mostly public, which is probably the easiest course for
a
> space advocacy community push, an increase in government spending
on
> space is in order.

The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people. You can't ask
them to cough up another dime when there are snipers picking them off
while they pump gas. You cannot bequeath exclusive rights to a
property in space: neither can governments. Only individual people
can claim property rights in space.

>
> Right now, if you live in the US, NASA spends about $50 a year of
your
> tax money. Except for the moronic anti-government types, that's an
> incredible deal. Why not push to double it, over, say, 5 years? The
> science community has successfully pushed several times to double
the
> funding for the National Science Foundation. Health researchers get
huge
> increases for the National Institutes for Health. What's wrong with
> space advocates that they can't advocate for space spending?

They only take 50$ for NASA... and a bunch more for the army... and a
little bit for this, and a little bit for that...

So pretty soon you have people that are taxed so much that they can't
cover a proportional amount of the tax and still survive. So
you "subsidise" those people by returning money that was taken from
them in the form of sales taxes.

Of course, since this large group is suddenly poor, you have to make
up the budget shortfall by adding more tax to the people at the other
end of the scale. So then entrepreneurs who need every penny they
can get to make their business grow, to hire more employees, find
that their taxes have gone up, and instead of hiring two hires one.
Or he raises the prices he charges his customers.

And then next year NASA and the army and the department of This and
the department of That come back and say, "we need an increase to our
budget, because costs have risen". And lobbyists say to
government, "space only costs 55 dollars a year to the average
taxpayer, they won't mind if it goes to 61.44". And the next
year, "well, there was another huge, totally-unforeseen cost overrun
on our major project this year, but we couldn't help it, you see, our
costs have risen. We need a bigger budget. $73.95 each this year,
they'll think they're getting a deal." And a General says, well, we
can roll it in the military budget, and both get a grant, to develop
satellites that can spy on individual people anywhere in the world.

So they both go skipping off to their respective departments with
wheelbarrows full of taxpayer's money, with nary an impure thought of
profit in their heads. Meanwhile the federal government realizes
that it can't keep up the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security even
midway through the retirement years of the baby boomers, and can't
pay its debt, and is barely keeping up with paying the defecit, and
hopes it can get away with it long enough to dump the financial mess
onto whoever is unlucky enough to be President when the country
officially goes bankrupt.

The feds forestall it as long as they can, buy dumping more and more
responsibilities on lower levels of government while cutting funding
to those same lower levels. Cities that can no longer afford to give
police a raise to keep up with the increasing costs slow their
recruitment rate, impose wage freezes, cut in other services,
impose "user fees" (more taxes), increase "property tax", forestall,
forestall, forestall... hoping to forever hold off the inevitable.

More money for government... more more always more. It does not grow
on trees. It comes out of your pocket. It comes out of my pocket.
It comes out of our pockets without our consent, to be used for
whatever purpose is deemed fit by the state. My money might go to
the Department of This, your money might go to the Department of
That; never mind that you hate That and everything it stands for, or
that you would much rather see your money go to This, or that I don't
care about This or That, and would rather spend my money on goods
that others have produced, by my choice and by their consent.

>
> If you really want it to be private, that means, instead of the $50
> going to NASA from every person in the country, only those actually
> interested in space (or whatever is being marketed) will have to
> contribute proportionally more. Say we manage to get 100,000 people
(the
> approximate size of the space advocacy community) enthusiastic
enough to
> contribute to a major space push. If it's to be at all effective
it's
> going to have to spend on a NASA scale - for a $10 billion/year
project
> that means each person will have to contribute $100,000/year!!! I'm
> afraid you'll have to count me out of that though - I don't make
that
> kind of cash.

Really want to make it private? Put NASA up for sale: immediately
after the sale, divide the total amount by the number of Americans
and send them each a cheque. "The bidding opens at 20 billion
dollars. Thank you Mr. Gates. 25 Billion, mister Branson. Thirty
Billion, Mr. Perot. 32 billion, Mr Gates..."

>
> Ok, here's a test, to see who's truly committed to commercial space
> development. You can't do $100,000/year, I understand that. Can you
do a
> one-time $16.95 contribution? That's all TransOrbital (the first
truly
> commercial deep space mission) is asking:
>
> https://www.transorbital.net/catalog/index.html
>
> and you get your message included in a lunar time capsule as well.
So,
> how many of you have purchased one of these? I happened to get the
> deluxe package...
>
> Anybody who hasn't done at least this is, de facto, an advocate for
> letting the government do all the spending on space.

I agree with you in principle, putting the money where the mouth is
and all, but I want something that will eventually get ME into
space. Not my ashes, not a recorded message from me, but me.

>
> >Ask yourself this: Where do I want the state of space to be in 25
> >years? Orbital infrastructure? Space-based industries? Larger
space
> >station/more space stations? Moon Base? Mars Base? A human
population
> >in space (or at least, not on Earth) exceeding 10,000 persons? Etc?
> >
> All of the above, of course...

A one-track mind like a government will not make all of the above
possible. Hundreds or thousands of companies in diverse fields, in
the quest for profit, will.

>
> >Now, what do we need to make your view of space (25 years from
now) a
> >reality? Cheaper access to LEO? Business-friendly space
law/policy?
> >Etc?
> >
> A change in attitude among the population in general, and among the
> space advocacy community in particular, to put their money where
their
> dreams are. Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
> corporations...

You mean, like the monopoly grant that they already give NASA? Oh
yes, that has worked very well. Wwe went to the moon a few times...
thirty years ago. Haven't had a reason to go back. Now we have a
project that has already had cost overruns in the billions, and its
almost half-livable! We can continuously keep three people alive in
space. wow. All of the technical advances in thirty years,
particularly in computers, and that's all NASA has managed toward
those goals above.

No, wait, they have done one of those goals: space infrastructure.
There are launch pads all over the world. So you can strike space
infrastructure off that list, we'll work with what we've got until we
make something better.

>
> >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market
isn't
> >>going to get us there all by itself.

The free market will get there itself, if government gets the hell
out of the way.

> >>
> >>
> >
> >In other words, there is absolutely, positively no way for the
> >private sector (business) to "open the space frontier" to
commerce?
> >Government has to be involved?
> >
> Unless a miraculous change in attitude toward space development
happens
> to some huge number of people (including all the so-called space
> advocates), government involvement seems to be the only option. It
> doesn't have to be massive involvement, however; all that's needed
are a
> few well-regulated monopolies...

This is the third time you have mentioned monopolies. What
monopolies, specifically?

:) ed

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Ed Minchau wrote:

> The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people. You can't ask
> them to cough up another dime when there are snipers picking them off
> while they pump gas.

Um, I claimed the problem was not enough money being spent on
space development. You seem to be saying that there is no
more money to be spent that way, neither as consumers nor
as taxpayers? Where do you propose the money comes from then?
If there's no money in it, how can commercial firms justify
any investment at all?

> You cannot bequeath exclusive rights to a
> property in space: neither can governments. Only individual people
> can claim property rights in space.

Why is space different from Earth? Only through some rather
vague treaties. And we already have "property rights" in space
through the spectrum allocations for geo-synchronous satellites
etc. Those rights come to corporations and government entities
through an international body (the ITU). The model certainly
could be extended to all sorts of usage rights, if there was a general
desire for it. But too many people think they don't need any
government regulation in space, and therefore they get no generally
recognized rights, and consequently no investment.

[anti-tax rant deleted - but note that US taxpayers pay considerably
less of their income than any other developed country; most current
taxes go to social programs, not NASA; the defense department budget
is 25 times NASA's; and NASA's has not grown, rather it has been
shrinking for decades. Is it because space enthusiasts have, more
than most others, swallowed the anti-government myth to their own loss?]

> [...]
>
> Really want to make it private? Put NASA up for sale: immediately
> after the sale, divide the total amount by the number of Americans
> and send them each a cheque. "The bidding opens at 20 billion
> dollars. Thank you Mr. Gates. 25 Billion, mister Branson. Thirty
> Billion, Mr. Perot. 32 billion, Mr Gates..."

NASA doesn't make money. Why would a businessman pay anything for it?
NASA does R&D. It produces lots of pretty pictures. It gets people
up into space. It operates massively inefficient launch infrastructure
(Kennedy, shuttles). It kowtows to congress and thousands of "space nuts"
who think they know how it should be run. Are you proposing NASA
become a new "Amtrak", with constant multi-billion dollar "subsidies"
from the federal government? What would a businessman do with
the thousands of PhD engineers and scientists? Probably fire most
of them right off the bat - they contribute nothing to any bottom line.
You'd be lucky if it fetched even $1 billion in a sale. And even
$30 billion adds up to $100 per US citizen - what's the point of
that, compared to the loss? You need an extra couple of golf outings
or dinners for two?

> [...]
> I agree with you in principle, putting the money where the mouth is
> and all, but I want something that will eventually get ME into
> space. Not my ashes, not a recorded message from me, but me.

Sure, but that lets you off REALLY easy because you need to
spend none of your precious money for years, maybe never.
Unless you happen to think $20 million is a bargain.
But TransOrbital (and investing in other space companies) provides
a way to contribute something now. Show you care. Or do you
not really care that much about space development, you really only
care about yourself?

> [...]
> A one-track mind like a government will not make all of the above
> possible. Hundreds or thousands of companies in diverse fields, in
> the quest for profit, will.

Oh I agree. But where's that profit going to come from? There's
no sign of even any revenues right now, let alone profits. If
you're not willing to part with any cash of your own, what exactly
are these space companies going to make money on? Have you actually
looked at what the market opportunities are? It's very grim for
the foreseeable future - unless there's some massive kickstart,
which could come from government, if we so choose.

> > Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
> > corporations...
>
> You mean, like the monopoly grant that they already give NASA?

NASA has no monopoly. It is just a way for the government
to spend a bunch of money on space-related things, mostly in
southern congressional districts (there's essentially no NASA
spending in my state, NY, which I'd like to see change...)

Other than for telecommunications, there are only two
space-related "monopoly's" the US government
enforces right now, and they're not so much "monopoly's" as
regulations: (1) all NASA-funded launch contracts must use
a US company (basically Boeing or Lockheed), and (2) any private
company trying to use a non-US launcher has to run the
state department "export control" gauntlet.

What I mean by "monopoly" here is, basically any sort of
"property right". If you own a home, the government recognizes
your exclusive right of ownership - I can't just bring a bunch
of my friends along, kick you out and move in. It's against
the law. We need similar laws and regulations for space development.
It's way too much of a free-for-all right now for any serious
investor to be interested.

Alan Wasser's space settlement initiative is a good example of
what I'm talking about: property rights on a celestial
body are recognized for those commercial entities that satisfy
certain regulatory requirements, on a first-come first-served basis.

> > >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market
> isn't
> > >>going to get us there all by itself.
>
> The free market will get there itself, if government gets the hell
> out of the way.

Funny, there doesn't seem to be much business investment in
the world's anarchies... (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Colombia,
Afghanistan, etc...) In truth there's no such thing as a free
market independent of government regulation. And there is, so far,
no such market for space development.

Arthur

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:

> > > >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market
> > isn't
> > > >>going to get us there all by itself.
> >
> > The free market will get there itself, if government gets the
hell
> > out of the way.
>
> Funny, there doesn't seem to be much business investment in
> the world's anarchies... (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Colombia,
> Afghanistan, etc...) In truth there's no such thing as a free
> market independent of government regulation. And there is, so far,
> no such market for space development.
>
> Arthur

I couldn't stop chuckling :) Razor sharp wit you have there.
Insightful too.

You know, now that I think about it, there are lots of guns there
too. Nothing stopping them from instituting "natural justice" and
other such concepts. How come the anti-government types aren't
rushing there? Hmm. :)

On Monday, October 21, 2002, at 02:51 PM, Arthur P. Smith wrote:

> Right now, if you live in the US, NASA spends about $50 a year of your
> tax money. Except for the moronic anti-government types, that's an
> incredible deal. Why not push to double it, over, say, 5 years?

Unfortunately, NASA greatly oversold both the shuttle and the space
station and, at the moment, lacks credibility with Congress.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> > The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people. You can't
ask
> > them to cough up another dime when there are snipers picking them
off
> > while they pump gas.
>
> Um, I claimed the problem was not enough money being spent on
> space development. You seem to be saying that there is no
> more money to be spent that way, neither as consumers nor
> as taxpayers? Where do you propose the money comes from then?
> If there's no money in it, how can commercial firms justify
> any investment at all?

Oh there's money in it all right - if governments stay out of the
way.

>
> > You cannot bequeath exclusive rights to a
> > property in space: neither can governments. Only individual
people
> > can claim property rights in space.
>
> Why is space different from Earth?

Well, let's see... there's the intense heat, cold, vacuum, radiation,
microgravity... and there is the fact that no country can claim
property in space, but private citizens can.

> Only through some rather
> vague treaties. And we already have "property rights" in space
> through the spectrum allocations for geo-synchronous satellites
> etc. Those rights come to corporations and government entities
> through an international body (the ITU).

Hmm... I don't recall personally voting for the ITU. Or the UN for
that matter. I don't get to vote on that. However, these spectrum
allocations (geosynchronous orbital slot allocations) seem to work
fine, for now.

The thing is, only human beings have rights. Governments and
government entities do not.

> The model certainly
> could be extended to all sorts of usage rights, if there was a
general
> desire for it. But too many people think they don't need any
> government regulation in space, and therefore they get no generally
> recognized rights, and consequently no investment.

Suppose for a moment that government somehow finds a way to allow
cheap access to space, and I send some of my robots to an asteroid.
The lander and robots are owned by me, and I have paid for the launch
to the asteroid. Who would own the rock? My country, the country
from which I launched, or the country where I had the robots and
lander manufactured?

And just what would stop me from ordering the robots to start mining
operations? Only the barrel of a gun.

And if I brought back to earth orbit a million tonnes of Tungsten,
could I sell it to General Electric?

>
> [anti-tax rant deleted - but note that US taxpayers pay considerably
> less of their income than any other developed country; most current
> taxes go to social programs, not NASA; the defense department budget
> is 25 times NASA's; and NASA's has not grown, rather it has been
> shrinking for decades. Is it because space enthusiasts have, more
> than most others, swallowed the anti-government myth to their own
loss?]

How convenient it is to claim victory without refuting anything. I
live in Canada - the most heavily-taxed country in the free world. I
have seen it happen here. Don't let it happen there.

NASA's budget ... how many times have they blown their budget in
recent years on the ISS? They have had to cut back on other
projects, the hard-science research stuff that forms the basis for
their mandate. They have been floundering for years.

I am not saying this to be a NASA-basher. There are many fine people
working there, doing very good work. But NASA is a government-run
space agency, both competing against and working with - even
subsidizing - other government-run space agencies. They operate with
layer upon layer of bureaucracy.

Anti-government myth? Check out the reality a short drive north.

>
> > [...]
> >
> > Really want to make it private? Put NASA up for sale: immediately
> > after the sale, divide the total amount by the number of Americans
> > and send them each a cheque. "The bidding opens at 20 billion
> > dollars. Thank you Mr. Gates. 25 Billion, mister Branson.
Thirty
> > Billion, Mr. Perot. 32 billion, Mr Gates..."
>
> NASA doesn't make money. Why would a businessman pay anything for
it?
> NASA does R&D.

Ever hear of Bell Labs? And what do you suppose Bill Gates would do
with a thousand NASA engineers and technicians? He would keep the
guys who could make him money.

Better yet. Divide NASA up into business units, dozens of
them. "The bidding for the robotics unit starts at $50 million
dollars. Thank you, Mr. Oz. Do I hear 60? 60 million, Mr Rutan..."

>It produces lots of pretty pictures. It gets people
> up into space. It operates massively inefficient launch
infrastructure
> (Kennedy, shuttles). It kowtows to congress and thousands of "space
nuts"
> who think they know how it should be run. Are you proposing NASA
> become a new "Amtrak", with constant multi-billion
dollar "subsidies"
> from the federal government?

Pretty pictures, a handful of people at a time into space, "massively
inefficient"... and you say that even more money for NASA will cure
what ails it? The definition of insanity: to do the same thing over
and over again, expecting the results to be different.

>What would a businessman do with
> the thousands of PhD engineers and scientists? Probably fire most
> of them right off the bat - they contribute nothing to any bottom
line.

What would Bill Gates do with 1000 NASA engineers? Simple. He would
keep the ones who could make him money. As I said before, there are
a lot of good people who do fine work there.

And any good ones who are left out have pretty good resumes: they are
rocket scientists, after all.

> You'd be lucky if it fetched even $1 billion in a sale. And even
> $30 billion adds up to $100 per US citizen - what's the point of
> that, compared to the loss? You need an extra couple of golf outings
> or dinners for two?
>

For many people, that $100 can mean the difference between eating and
not. The $50 less paid in taxes every year helps, too. Don't forget
the multiplier effect.

> > [...]
> > I agree with you in principle, putting the money where the mouth
is
> > and all, but I want something that will eventually get ME into
> > space. Not my ashes, not a recorded message from me, but me.
>
> Sure, but that lets you off REALLY easy because you need to
> spend none of your precious money for years, maybe never.
> Unless you happen to think $20 million is a bargain.
> But TransOrbital (and investing in other space companies) provides
> a way to contribute something now. Show you care. Or do you
> not really care that much about space development, you really only
> care about yourself?

It doesn't let me off easy at all. It has meant investing not in
somebody else's vision, but my own. I spend my precious time and
money and energy on this.

I do not think $20M is a bargain. I think something more like double
the price of a transcontinental flight is reasonable. But is
TransOrbital sending people to space right now? The Russians are the
only game in town. The only way prices will come down is if market
pressures force them that way.

I wish TransOrbital all the best, but I won't invest anything just
to "show I care". There had better be a good reason to invest.

>
> > [...]
> > A one-track mind like a government will not make all of the above
> > possible. Hundreds or thousands of companies in diverse fields,
in
> > the quest for profit, will.
>
> Oh I agree. But where's that profit going to come from? There's
> no sign of even any revenues right now, let alone profits. If
> you're not willing to part with any cash of your own, what exactly
> are these space companies going to make money on? Have you actually
> looked at what the market opportunities are? It's very grim for
> the foreseeable future - unless there's some massive kickstart,
> which could come from government, if we so choose.

You seem to be of the opinion that there is a limited amount of money
in the world, and that money "comes from" somewhere. It doesn't.
Money is made by people who work. The money will be made by
companies who sell things that people want to buy.

If people wanted to buy pretty pictures, send handfuls of highly-
trained astronauts to space, and operate massively-inefficient launch
infrastructure, then NASA would be in the black.

>
> > > Barring that, laws to provide monopoly grants to major
> > > corporations...
> >
> > You mean, like the monopoly grant that they already give NASA?
>
> NASA has no monopoly. It is just a way for the government
> to spend a bunch of money on space-related things, mostly in
> southern congressional districts (there's essentially no NASA
> spending in my state, NY, which I'd like to see change...)

You said it yourself. "NASA... is just a way for government to spend
a bunch of money... mostly in southern congressional districts..."
Now tell me again in small words why NASA needs more taxpayer dollars.

>
> Other than for telecommunications, there are only two
> space-related "monopoly's" the US government
> enforces right now, and they're not so much "monopoly's" as
> regulations: (1) all NASA-funded launch contracts must use
> a US company (basically Boeing or Lockheed), and (2) any private
> company trying to use a non-US launcher has to run the
> state department "export control" gauntlet.

1) Thus bloating Boeing and LockMart at NASA's "infinite" teat.
2) I am not familiar with this. Please fill me in.

>
> What I mean by "monopoly" here is, basically any sort of
> "property right". If you own a home, the government recognizes
> your exclusive right of ownership - I can't just bring a bunch
> of my friends along, kick you out and move in. It's against
> the law. We need similar laws and regulations for space development.
> It's way too much of a free-for-all right now for any serious
> investor to be interested.

Private property rights! Now we're getting somewhere.

As for what a government can and cannot do:
expropriate Pronunciation Key (k-sprpr-t)
tr.v. expropriated, expropriating,
expropriates
1) To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who
lived in the path of the new highway.
2) To transfer (another's property) to oneself.

Such a pretty word for stealing.

>
> Alan Wasser's space settlement initiative is a good example of
> what I'm talking about: property rights on a celestial
> body are recognized for those commercial entities that satisfy
> certain regulatory requirements, on a first-come first-served basis.
>

http://www.permanent.com/archimedes

I have Class D claims on 11 Parthenope, 18 Melpemone, 121 Hermione
(and it satellite and libration orbits), and 243 Ida (and its
satellite Dactyl, as well as libration orbits).

> > > >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free market
> > isn't
> > > >>going to get us there all by itself.
> >
> > The free market will get there itself, if government gets the hell
> > out of the way.
>
> Funny, there doesn't seem to be much business investment in
> the world's anarchies... (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Colombia,
> Afghanistan, etc...) In truth there's no such thing as a free
> market independent of government regulation. And there is, so far,
> no such market for space development.
>
> Arthur

Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Columbia... these are not anarchies,
they are thugocracies.

:) ed

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Ed Minchau" wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Arthur P. Smith" wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Ed Minchau wrote:
> >
> > > The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people. You
can't
> ask
> > > them to cough up another dime when there are snipers picking
them
> off
> > > while they pump gas.
> >
> > Um, I claimed the problem was not enough money being spent on
> > space development. You seem to be saying that there is no
> > more money to be spent that way, neither as consumers nor
> > as taxpayers? Where do you propose the money comes from then?
> > If there's no money in it, how can commercial firms justify
> > any investment at all?
>
> Oh there's money in it all right - if governments stay out of the
> way.

While I'm enjoying reading this thread and contemplating the points
raised in the back and forth volley, I just can't let some points
you raise slide by unchallenged. The above statement is
unsubstantiatied. I'd be happy to lend support to your position but
I'd need some convincing. As it reads now, it comes across as
wishful thinking on your part, or as a philosophical anti-government
rant. What groups are governments keeping out of the space market?

>
> > > You cannot bequeath exclusive rights to a
> > > property in space: neither can governments. Only individual
> people
> > > can claim property rights in space.
> >
> > Why is space different from Earth?
>
> Well, let's see... there's the intense heat, cold, vacuum,
radiation,
> microgravity... and there is the fact that no country can claim
> property in space, but private citizens can.

Why are you under the impression that private citizens can claim
property in space? That's not true. If you're basing your claim on
the Outer Space Treaty, be aware that that treaty was negotiated
with nation states as the representative bodies. That no mention is
made of individuals or corporations was not an oversight nor was it
an unstated acknowledgement of private citizen's property rights.
Frankly, international treaties presume that nations represent
their citizens and that they will govern and police them in order to
maintain compliance with international treaties. Your property
rights are conferred to you by your national government. You can't
have property rights without a national government supporting your
claim. If they don't support your claim to property on celestial
bodies, then you're out of luck.

Thus, if you claimed some property in orbit, and some nations
objected that it violated the Outer Space or Moon Treaties, they
would complain to the U.N., who in turn would notify your government
of the objection, and your government would have to stop you, remove
you, invalidate your claim and make diplomatic peace.

Now if your government secedes from the treaty in question, then
other nations's objections can't be satisfied via treaty procedures,
but you can be assured that other forms of diplomatic pressure would
be applied.

If you're looking to affect a change in law, then I suggest you
consider the following legal principles in your deliberations:

1.) The principle of DE FACTO: Go out, claim an asteroid, and damn
the consequences. You'll be subjected to a lot of governmental
pressure, i.e. property siezed, being sued, perhaps arrested, etc.
But never let go of your claim, develop it, and over time the law
will come to recognize what is.

2.) As an adjunct to the above, if you conduct yourself so as to
garner international respect while still maintaining your claim
based on DE FACTO, you could also seek to invoke the principle of DE
LEGE FERENDA, the principle of what the law ought to be. You could
demonstrate to the internaitonal communtiy that it would be in their
interest to not allow a DE FACTO claim to proceed, but to recognize
your claim by changing the law. This would insure future respect for
international law and impose an order to the claim of property
rights.

3.) The principle of ESTOPPEL, which is a requirement to be
consistent in legal argumentation. This argument might work f any
national actor uses celestial resources while not claiming
ownership. You could take away from them their resources, even by
force, because they would have no claim to the ownership. If they
objected, you would require them to be legally consistent, have the
objection be based on theft of ownership, which in turn applies to
where they got the material, etc. etc.

4.) The principle of JUS SOLI. Take your pregnant wife with you when
you visit your asteroid. Wait there until she gives birth. That
child will be a citizen of the asteroid by virtue of his birth, and
will not be a citizen of the country of his parent's birth (JUS
SANGUINES.)

5.) The principle of REBUC SIC STANTIBUS. Argue that the treaties in
question should no longer apply because the conditions of today are
sufficeintly different from when the treaties were signed.

6.) The principle of TERRA NULLIUS. This is land without an owner.
Any state can claim it. This one will be tough to argue because the
Outer Space and Moon Treaties, both recognize that celestial bodies
cannot be claimed by signatory nation states, and by implication,
their citizens. Nothing stopping a NEW nation state, one situated on
the moon or asteroid, from claiming sovereignty. This is a
monumental undertaking though. It would take lot's of capital, which
will be earth based capital subject to earth based regulation.
Basically, if you want to play this hand, you need to cooperation of
Earth's nations. If they see that no other Earth nation is getting
the upper hand on them, and that this really is a NEW nation, not
tied to any particular Earth nation, then there may be lessened
restrictions on Earth based cooperation with your new state.

7.) Along a similar theme, is the principle of UTI POSSIDETIS. That
is, that which you possess, you may continue to possess.

8.) If you do set up some new nation state, you could invoke the
international law principle of ULTRA VIRES. This is a statement that
the Treaty violations you are accused of and the resulting sanctions
are beyond the powers of the Treaties, which never considered the
case of a NEW nation state being created on the celestial body.
Thus, to impose penalties as though you were a violating signatory
state, or a citizen of such state is not valid under the law.

The above list is by no means comprehensive. I just wanted to throw
out some obvious arguments that you could make. Give them some
thought.

>
> > Only through some rather
> > vague treaties. And we already have "property rights" in space
> > through the spectrum allocations for geo-synchronous satellites
> > etc. Those rights come to corporations and government entities
> > through an international body (the ITU).
>
> Hmm... I don't recall personally voting for the ITU.

That's neither here nor there. Your national government had a say in
the creation and adminstration of the ITU.

>Or the UN for that matter. I don't get to vote on that.

Same as the above.

> However, these spectrum
> allocations (geosynchronous orbital slot allocations) seem to work
> fine, for now.
>
> The thing is, only human beings have rights. Governments and
> government entities do not.

Huh? Who says? Human rights are conferred upon people by laws
created by governments. Live in an anarchy and see how well rights
are enforced. As for international law, the individual person does
not exist, the nation states are the actors.

>
> > The model certainly
> > could be extended to all sorts of usage rights, if there was a
> general
> > desire for it. But too many people think they don't need any
> > government regulation in space, and therefore they get no
generally
> > recognized rights, and consequently no investment.
>
> Suppose for a moment that government somehow finds a way to allow
> cheap access to space, and I send some of my robots to an
asteroid.
> The lander and robots are owned by me, and I have paid for the
launch
> to the asteroid. Who would own the rock? My country, the country
> from which I launched, or the country where I had the robots and
> lander manufactured?

To be argued before a court by the interested parties. It would be
interesting to see how it is resolved.

>
> And just what would stop me from ordering the robots to start
mining
> operations? Only the barrel of a gun.

No, governments can be more subtle than that. Your assets can be
frozen. You can be denied access to deep space communication
equipment, future launch priviledges can be restricted, export
control licenses can be denied, you can be audited, etc.

>
> And if I brought back to earth orbit a million tonnes of Tungsten,
> could I sell it to General Electric?

Could you sell it cheaper than your Earth based competitors? Would
GE want to get involved in a legal quagmire? Do you actually have
legal title to the Tungsten? How would you get it down to Earth?

>
> > [anti-tax rant deleted - but note that US taxpayers pay
considerably
> > less of their income than any other developed country; most
current
> > taxes go to social programs, not NASA; the defense department
budget
> > is 25 times NASA's; and NASA's has not grown, rather it has been
> > shrinking for decades. Is it because space enthusiasts have, more
> > than most others, swallowed the anti-government myth to their
own
> loss?]
>
> How convenient it is to claim victory without refuting anything.
I
> live in Canada - the most heavily-taxed country in the free
world.

Uh, Hello? Consider Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, other OECD
countries.

Consider the information in this link:

http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Basics/Tax/Tax_Structure.html

>

> You said it yourself. "NASA... is just a way for government to
spend
> a bunch of money... mostly in southern congressional
districts..."
> Now tell me again in small words why NASA needs more taxpayer
dollars.

Well, unfortunately, they're really the only game in town and
they're being hamstrung by politics, bureaucratic mandarins,
competition between the different NASA centers, etc.

The private sector isn't rushing in to exploit the opportunites that
those of us on this list see very clearly.

So, more money might translate into something that isn't a
compromize solution, i.e. shuttle, ISS.

> >
> > Other than for telecommunications, there are only two
> > space-related "monopoly's" the US government
> > enforces right now, and they're not so much "monopoly's" as
> > regulations: (1) all NASA-funded launch contracts must use
> > a US company (basically Boeing or Lockheed), and (2) any private
> > company trying to use a non-US launcher has to run the
> > state department "export control" gauntlet.
>
> 1) Thus bloating Boeing and LockMart at NASA's "infinite" teat.
> 2) I am not familiar with this. Please fill me in.

What 2.) means is that if you are using US technology, even as a
Canadian, German, English, etc payload assembler, never mind actual
launch provider, you have to get U.S. State Department approval to
export the technology. An example of recent violations:

http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/sd2000-05-001.shtml

>
> > What I mean by "monopoly" here is, basically any sort of
> > "property right". If you own a home, the government recognizes
> > your exclusive right of ownership - I can't just bring a bunch
> > of my friends along, kick you out and move in. It's against
> > the law. We need similar laws and regulations for space
development.
> > It's way too much of a free-for-all right now for any serious
> > investor to be interested.
>
> Private property rights! Now we're getting somewhere.
>
> As for what a government can and cannot do:
> expropriate Pronunciation Key (k-sprpr-t)
> tr.v. expropriated, expropriating,
> expropriates
> 1) To deprive of possession: expropriated the property owners who
> lived in the path of the new highway.
> 2) To transfer (another's property) to oneself.
>
> Such a pretty word for stealing.

You'll have to elaborate. This just sounds like a libertarian anti-
government rant. Make your case.

>
> > Alan Wasser's space settlement initiative is a good example of
> > what I'm talking about: property rights on a celestial
> > body are recognized for those commercial entities that satisfy
> > certain regulatory requirements, on a first-come first-served
basis.
> >
> http://www.permanent.com/archimedes
>
> I have Class D claims on 11 Parthenope, 18 Melpemone, 121 Hermione
> (and it satellite and libration orbits), and 243 Ida (and its
> satellite Dactyl, as well as libration orbits).

Yeah, some guy who's trying to make a buck selling different classes
of claims. His organization has no standing before any international
body. Good luck enforcing your claims when someone else does
actually claim the celestial body. :)
>
> > > > >>My point: despite the fervent wishes of many, the free
market
> > > isn't
> > > > >>going to get us there all by itself.
> > >
> > > The free market will get there itself, if government gets the
hell
> > > out of the way.
> >
> > Funny, there doesn't seem to be much business investment in
> > the world's anarchies... (Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Colombia,
> > Afghanistan, etc...) In truth there's no such thing as a free
> > market independent of government regulation. And there is, so
far,
> > no such market for space development.
> >
> > Arthur
>
> Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Columbia... these are not anarchies,
> they are thugocracies.
>
> :) ed

And the difference is what? In an anarchy, the strongest will rule
over the weakest. Thugs are usually the strongest. Anarchies don't
usually happen with a bunch of polite, civil minded, tea drinking
genteel old ladies trying to co-operate.

--- In spacesettlers, "Ed Minchau" wrote:

> I have Class D claims on 11 Parthenope, 18 Melpemone, 121 Hermione
> (and it satellite and libration orbits), and 243 Ida (and its
> satellite Dactyl, as well as libration orbits).

What you own is a piece of paper with the words "Class D"
and "Parthenope" on it, as well as the promise not to sell pieces of
paper with the words "Class D" and "Parthenope" on them. Nothing
else. If the individual or organization you bought your paper from
WAS to sell pieces of paper with the words "Class D"
and "Parthenope" on them, I guess you would be able to sue. But
what is to stop somebody else from selling similar pieces of paper?
Nothing. Your pieces of paper no more make you the owner of
asteroids than a "My Other Car Is The Mach 5" bumper sticker makes
me Speed Racer.

Xenophile (Go! Speed, go!)

Ed Minchau wrote:

>Oh there's money in it all right - if governments stay out of the
>way.
>

But you had said:

>>The taxpayers and the consumers are the same people.
>>
so if there is no money to be spent on space, neither as taxpayers, nor
as consumers, then there's no money for space, period. How is government
in the way?

>[...]
>The thing is, only human beings have rights. Governments and
>government entities do not.
>

The government of any country represents its people, to a better or
worse extent depending on the type of government, but every government
has some sort of "head of state" responsible for making agreements with
the governments of other countries. The ITU, in the example you complain
about, or any UN agency, exists because of agreements between countries
represented by their heads of state and other duly appointed
authorities; in the case of Canada or the US, you elect your own
government, and therefore are represented by them in the running of such
agencies.

What you really seem to be complaining about is that you, as one of 6
billion people in the world, have very little influence. Well, tough.
That's the world we live in. Be thankful you're in a democracy.

>> But too many people think they don't need any
>>government regulation in space, and therefore they get no generally
>>recognized rights, and consequently no investment.
>>
>>
>
>Suppose for a moment that government somehow finds a way to allow
>cheap access to space, and I send some of my robots to an asteroid.
>The lander and robots are owned by me, and I have paid for the launch
>to the asteroid. Who would own the rock? My country, the country
>from which I launched, or the country where I had the robots and
>lander manufactured?
>

Nobody would own "the rock" under current international law, but you
would own your own equipment there, and your government (where you, as
owner of the equipment, are a citizen) would be responsible for your
activities with that equipment.

But you would have no legal recourse against a competitor who landed 10
days after you find tungsten there, with more equipment and scooped up
most of the rock before you could gather enough to make a profit. Unless
they directly damaged your equipment, you would have no legal recourse
if they cut away under where you had landed and set your equipment
adrift. You would have no property right, no monopoly to that material.
Wild West time!!! Or, more contemporarily, think Somalia...

And that means, you have ZERO assurance that, even aside from the risks
of getting to your dream rock, once you get there you'll be able to get
any benefit out of it. If you have your own multi-billion dollar
investment fund to put at risk, that's one thing, but it's pretty
unlikely that, without any legal property-rights backing, you'll be able
to get anybody else to help fund your little adventure.

>[...]
>
>How convenient it is to claim victory without refuting anything. I
>live in Canada - the most heavily-taxed country in the free world. I
>have seen it happen here. Don't let it happen there.
>

I grew up in Canada. It's a very nice country. I always thought
Scandinavian countries had higher taxes though. One of the reasons taxes
are higher in the northern countries is the greater expense of capital
investment needed, relative to population - given that Canada has 1/10
the population but about the same area as the US, it's not doing too bad
for government spending on a per-square-mile-basis! But there is much
less of private entrepreneurialism there than here in the US. Government
in the US has not been growing significantly bigger though; taxes are
pretty much where they always were. Sometimes they go up a bit,
sometimes down. I think the balance between public and private sectors
in the US is just about right. But NASA's fraction of that is pretty
tiny these days - less than 1% of the federal budget, and I have no
problem suggesting other places to cut so NASA can have just a bit more
money and can start seriously talking about the Moon and Mars again.

>[...]
>
>>NASA does R&D.
>>
>>
>
>Ever hear of Bell Labs?
>

Um, did you realize Bell Labs was run by AT&T? The US Telephone
monopoly? Now that the telco monopolies in the US have been broken, Bell
Labs (now with Lucent Technologies) is a shadow of its former self; with
the recent scandals there and Lucent's financial troubles I wouldn't be
surprised (though I would be very sorry) to see the place shut its doors
in the next few years. IBM's research lab has also been severely cut and
focused on near-term work in recent years. Same at Xerox, Kodak, etc.
Only the pharmaceutical companies seem to be able to spend much on
long-term R&D these days, and that's due to their strong monopoly
protections under the patent system.

A monopoly, or a government agency, can afford to fund blue-sky stuff
that may have huge payoffs many years down the road. A company in a real
competitive environment cannot afford to think beyond the next few
quarters; research has to be much more product-oriented, and very little
NASA does qualifies for that.

>[...]
>Better yet. Divide NASA up into business units, dozens of
>them. "The bidding for the robotics unit starts at $50 million
>dollars. Thank you, Mr. Oz. Do I hear 60? 60 million, Mr Rutan..."
>
What product does NASA make that would justify that? If companies wanted
to hire NASA engineers for their skills, they can do that without buying
up the buildings and centers and management structures and commitments
to existing programs that are there now.

>
>Pretty pictures, a handful of people at a time into space, "massively
>inefficient"... and you say that even more money for NASA will cure
>what ails it? The definition of insanity: to do the same thing over
>and over again, expecting the results to be different.
>
We haven't tried giving NASA more money or a new direction since the big
and somewhat unimaginative "Space Exploration Initiative" was shot down
by congress under Bush-I. What I'm suggesting is funding for HR4742 -
the "Space Settlement Initiative", or something of that sort, a
sensible step-by-step plan with a long term vision of space enterprise I
would think all space advocates could agree with. I agree we shouldn't
be doing the same thing over and over again; what we need is something
new and different, which hasn't been tried in decades: give NASA some
positive feedback to work in a new direction, instead of the constant
negatives which seems to be all the space advocacy community can come up
with lately.

>[...]
>
>For many people, that $100 can mean the difference between eating and
>not. The $50 less paid in taxes every year helps, too. Don't forget
>the multiplier effect.
>
People who have trouble finding enough to eat don't pay taxes in this
country. And they get plenty of money already from the government. And
there's plenty of other support structures around. I can't imagine it's
any worse in Canada. I don't even know what you mean by "don't forget
the multiplier effect" - do you think money spent by NASA goes up in
flames somehow, never to re-enter the economy?

>[...]
>You seem to be of the opinion that there is a limited amount of money
>in the world, and that money "comes from" somewhere. It doesn't.
>Money is made by people who work. The money will be made by
>companies who sell things that people want to buy.
>
Um. I'm no economist, but here's how I understand it. At any given time,
for a given level of productivity and employment, there is a limited
yearly "value added" in an economy. The money represented by that value
"comes from" whatever demand there is, and "goes to" salaries. Over that
yearly period, whatever comes in as salaries (and investment dividends)
then goes out again as taxes, direct spending, or savings and
investment. The only way to have "more money" total in the economy,
other than expanding the employed population, is to improve productivity
- generally that means capital investment of one sort or another. Some
types of capital investment (roads, rails, utility infrastructure,
security measures, legal system, scientific R&D) are of benefit to all
in common, and need government sponsorship, whether directly through
taxes or indirectly through regulated monopolies. The only other option
is for private individuals to see the need, and contribute to the common
good out of the goodness of their hearts. The level of that investment,
due to our general selfishness, is never as high as can be achieved
through a good government.

If you don't think your government is making the right investments to
improve general productivity, then it is your right, and responsibility,
to work to change that. I claim space infrastructure should be an
important part of government capital investment.

>[...] You said it yourself. "NASA... is just a way for government to spend
>a bunch of money... mostly in southern congressional districts..."
>
From the point of view of a business-person who might want to buy in to
their business, that's all NASA is. From the point of view of somebody
with an interest in space development, NASA is an awful lot more than
that. It's R&D, investment in infrastructure, as I said elsewhere.

>
>Now tell me again in small words why NASA needs more taxpayer dollars.
>
Because they have a lot of good people who have been stifled by years of
congressional inconsistency and upper-management indecision and
obfuscation. Give NASA a consistent mission and consistently improved
budget, involving humans beyond low earth orbit, and they will flourish.
Give them a little bit of trust here.

>>[...]
>>
>>(2) any private
>>company trying to use a non-US launcher has to run the
>>state department "export control" gauntlet.
>>
>>
>
>1) Thus bloating Boeing and LockMart at NASA's "infinite" teat.
>
Hey, it's not an unreasonable requirement for government funds to be
expended within that country; but it does act as a trade-protectionist
measure, yes. If other US launch firms can do it cheaper though, they're
welcome to compete.

>2) I am not familiar with this. Please fill me in.
>
http://pmdtc.org/reference.htm
- the infamous "International Traffic in Arms Regulations"
Exporting satellites used to be almost a rubber stamp through the
Department of Commerce, but then the Republicans lashed into the Clinton
administration for letting some companies launch satellites in China,
and since then it's been regulated by the US State department, and
really cracked down on. I believe the US Congress itself must grant
specific exception for anybody trying to launch from China, now.

>[...]
>
>Private property rights! Now we're getting somewhere.
>
Yup. It's possible this alone would provide enough investment incentive
without further capital investment by the government. I'd like to see both.

>http://www.permanent.com/archimedes
>
>I have Class D claims on 11 Parthenope, 18 Melpemone, 121 Hermione
>(and it satellite and libration orbits), and 243 Ida (and its
>satellite Dactyl, as well as libration orbits).
>
I met Larry Roberts (who runs the Archimedes Institute) recently. His
claims registry is a nice idea - but it's not exactly any better
(perhaps on worse ground legally) than Dennis Hope's Lunar Embassy,
which sells real estate "certificates" for the Moon and other celestial
bodies, and has prior claims to most of the solar system. Your claims,
in any case, can be easily superceded by more specific or higher-class
claims, so they don't really mean much at present. I believe there are
some legal systems that might recognize such claims, but the US,
Canadian and British common law system doesn't, at least at present.

>Liberia, Ivory Coast, Congo, Columbia... these are not anarchies,
>they are thugocracies.
>
Well, they lack a central government capable of providing much in the
way of common capital investment to their people (or have at times in
the recent past) whatever you want to call them. If you don't want
government, that's the sort of thing you end up with.

Arthur

On Friday, October 25, 2002, at 10:59 AM, Ed Minchau wrote:

> The thing is, only human beings have rights. Governments and
> government entities do not.

Actually, rights are usually created by law -- they are group
creations. If everyone in a society thinks you have a particular
right -- then you do. If they don't, you don't (unless you have
sufficient force -- which requires a group of bully boys on your side,
i.e., a group of people who believe you have those rights!). This may
not be how it's 'supposed' to be, but it's the way things actually are.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 02:43 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> NASA is not the same as 'space spending'. NASA is a tiny fraction of
> space, and getting smaller all the time. Governmental operations grow
> at only the same rate as the population grow. Commercial operations
> tend to grow exponentially.

A year of two ago commercial expenditures on space exceeded government
spending for the first time. Since then the commercial side has gone
into a major slump.

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 02:43 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:

> The question isn't what you spend. It's what you launch. I've seen
> figures that suggest that the true cost of launching a man, even with
> low tech expendables can be as low as $100,000 per person.

You are probably thinking of the Russian tourist project that intends to
launch 2 tourists at a time on a sub-orbital flight for $100,000
apiece. Unfortunately, achieving orbital velocity is ****much****
harder than going sub-orbital.

Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for $100,000 may start in 2005! See
http://www.spaceadventures.com/suborbital for details.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 05:33 PM, Arthur P. Smith wrote:

> Now launch costs do improve with time; probably we can expect
> somewhere around 20% per year.

Sounds pretty optimistic. Do you have data for the last 5-10 years?
That would give a good idea of what one might expect if we haven't hit
any walls or see a breakthrough.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect and
deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 05:33 PM, Arthur P. Smith wrote:

> Let's see, there's $50 billion in commercial space activity devoted
> to communications satellites.

That sounds way high. Where did this figure come from?

The International Space Station (ISS) most important legacy may be
jump-starting space tourism. Consider: the first space tourist, Dennis
Tito, was supposed to go to the Soviet era Mir space station. Under
pressure from NASA, Russia de-orbited the Mir which resulted in Mr. Tito
going to the ISS instead. Now the Mir was old, smelly, crowded and
probably not all that nice. The ISS was brand new, shinny, much more
roomy, etc. Mr. Tito came back to Earth with glowing accounts of how
great space is. Would his experience have been as good on Mir?

Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html