>>>>>NEAR
Shoemaker mission was pretty abysmal. Each week that Atlanta newspapers
have some article or another on the Shuttle or ISS, but only thrice did I
see anything in the local paper concerning NEAR Shoemaker.>>>>>
concept, in which a hypothetical European country, 'hypothetica', initiated
a large space program directed towards the exploitation of Lunar and
Asteroidal resources.
Two scenarios were discussed: (1) The national mobilisation model, were
the country, makes the space program their national mission-statement, and
commits huge national resources upwards of $20Bn/annum for at least 10
years, towards its completion. (2) The national side project model. The
country commits $3Bn/annum towards a slow, gradual development of
technology, geared towards industrial development within 30-40 years.
Both models have their pro's and cons.
The side-project model.
CONS: requires a great deal of time and patience. It is a long term, mainly
blue-sky project and it runs the risk of being cancelled by successive
governments. Takes place so slowly, that other world governments may beat
you to it. Does not provide you with humans in space capability for some
years.
PRO'S: Will go relatively un-noticed (will not spark jealousy reactions in
other nations). It will provide a small, but persistent boost towards
national economic growth. The smaller size of the program makes it easier
to manage. Long term conditioning of the public through interactive
programs and by the media, can be used to gear them towards the idea of
space colonisation.
The National mobilisation model
PRO'S: Can accomplish real results, in quick time:
Big dumb booster program could provide cheap access to HEO within 5 years
of start. Setting up of moon base could be accomplished within six years.
Full scale HEO workshop (100m diameter steel spherical hull) completed
within seven. First SPS satellite and mass communication systems contract
could be accepted after 7 years. First SPS completed at year 8. Offer to
build the US a massive defence shield using cheap lunar materials and
dumb-booster launch systems. Fully completed at year 20. Mars colonisation
within 15 years. Using the Big-dumb-booster principle, 10,000 people, could
affordably be lifted to HEO every year, once a program was in place that
could build island-1 type colonies that would house and feed them.
Can produce huge economic growth, maybe as high as 10% per year? A public
works project could be used to involve a significant portion of the public
and private companies. The realisation of the true potential of space would
inspire millions of people. A great many people would be swept up due to
the enormous scale of the program. Less time for other nations to react.
With 10,000 people in space, each and every year, everyone who had not been
in space, would know someone that was either in space or had been in space.
I think that it can generally be accepted that once a person has seen the
Earth from space and the moon up close, they would almost invariably
support further space travel. The sight of such things is a wake up call
for most astronauts. How many of the Apollo astronauts, would honestly have
opposed further space travel after having seen the things that they had? In
other words, the program would become self perpetuating in the eyes of the
public. No one is going to want to give up the forbidden fruit once they
have tasted it.
CONS: The program would spark both foreign interest and concern. Many
would fear that hypothetica was trying to steal their own future heritage.
It would probably start a new space race that could leave Hypothetica in
the dust. If the other nations felt threatened by the fact that hypothetica
had space ambitions, things could get really ugly.
The program would suck up a lot of money. The financial vacuum that it
creates, may harm some essential services within Hypothetica. This could
turn public opinion against the program. If this happens, the program would
be cancelled with many of the projects half finished.
Can anyone think of any other advantages or disadvantages for each type of
program? can anyone punch any holes in these ideas?
Tony
Just a few quick clarification questions. Hypothetica apparently
uses the $ symbol for its currency. Are you assuming that
Hypothetica's currency translates dollar for dollar to US currency?
You spelled mobilization as "mobilisation" indicating that perhaps
your own thinking is not US based. So, When you say "Bn" meaning
billion, do you mean British billion or US billion? Because, frankly
three billion US dollars per year for any single project is a lot of
money for just about any country including the US.
> A short while ago, I started a discussion on this list of a program
>concept, in which a hypothetical European country, 'hypothetica',
initiated
>a large space program directed towards the exploitation of Lunar and
>Asteroidal resources.
> Two scenarios were discussed: (1) The national mobilisation model,
were
>the country, makes the space program their national mission-statement,
and
>commits huge national resources upwards of $20Bn/annum for at least 10
>years, towards its completion. (2) The national side project model. The
>country commits $3Bn/annum towards a slow, gradual development of
>technology, geared towards industrial development within 30-40 years.
>
> Can anyone think of any other advantages or disadvantages for each
type of
>program? can anyone punch any holes in these ideas?
mobilization and timelines, I think that you have captured both concepts.
Mitchell James
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)
<< Just a few quick clarification questions. Hypothetica apparently
uses the $ symbol for its currency. Are you assuming that
Hypothetica's currency translates dollar for dollar to US currency?
>>>>>>>>>>>
<<
three billion US dollars per year for any single project is a lot of
money for just about any country including the US.
>>>>>>
> In a message dated Tue, 12 Jun 2001 2:32:31 PM Eastern Daylight
> Time, Sirch Namdig cjgidman@... writes:
>
><< Just a few quick clarification questions. Hypothetica
> apparently
> uses the $ symbol for its currency. Are you assuming that
> Hypothetica's currency translates dollar for dollar to US currency?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Not necessarily, in Mexico the dollar symbol means a peso :-)
on 3,000,000,000 pesos/year or 3,000,000,000,000 (3 british billion,
I think) US dollars/year?
Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the money amounts should have been
left out of the proposal. But, by throwing the dollar amounts in
there, the proposal limits who Hypothetica can be. Maybe Hypothetica
can only be the US. In which case, selling defense shields to the US
doesn't seem to make a lot of sense?
I don't know. I think I may have missed the point.
Sirch Namdig wrote: Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the money amounts should have been
left out of the proposal. But, by throwing the dollar amounts in The numbers don't matter. The question was the relative amounts. Tony just happens to like to put numbers to everything.
Mitchell James
>>>Just a few quick clarification questions. Hypothetica apparently
uses the $ symbol for its currency. Are you assuming that
Hypothetica's currency translates dollar for dollar to US currency?
You spelled mobilization as "mobilisation" indicating that perhaps
your own thinking is not US based. So, When you say "Bn" meaning
billion, do you mean British billion or US billion? Because, frankly
three billion US dollars per year for any single project is a lot of
money for just about any country including the US.>>>
any G8 country supporting an independent space program. My original
assumption was that hypothetica might be the US. It seems clear that either
Germany, UK or France could easily afford a program that would put large
amounts of human infrastructure in HEO. One of the requirements for the
program would probably be the development of a Big Dumb Booster.
Incidentally, I believe that the 'British Billion' is now a more or less
defunct number, which is no longer used. When you hear the term 'billion',
it almost invariably means 10**9 not 10**12. It is also customary to work
out costs in the US dollar, since it is a unit that I and most other people
understand. Working things out in Sterling, Francs or Deutch marks would
get confusing.
For Germany and the UK, one significant problem that I can see is finding
a launch site. Germany would either have to enter into co-operation with
another nation or launch from a sea platform of some kind. The UK has
various small island possessions in the Caribbean and pacific and Indian
oceans. I don't know if any of these are large enough or close enough to
the equator to be useful. The French have retained colonial rule over a
small portion of north America: : french guyana. This has existing launch
facilities that are curently dedicated to Ariane. This would give the
French a head start, even though the German and British governments
probably have more disposable government income.
I considered the possibility that a smaller economy like Holland, Sweden,
Norway, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil or even South Africa could
support such a program out of their government budgets, as long as
expendature did not exceed $2-3Billion/year.
Tony
From what I understand, the British Billion is an obsolete number that is
never really used. Incidentally, 3 British Billion outweighs the entire US
government budget! There is not a nation in the world that could afford a
project of any kind, costing 3 Brit billion/year.
>>>>Sirch Namdig wrote: Maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the money amounts
should have been
left out of the proposal. But, by throwing the dollar amounts inThe
numbers don't matter. The question was the relative amounts. Tony just
happens to like to put numbers to everything.>>>>
many governments. A US$20Bn program could be financed by just a handful of
governments. Anything larger than that and even the US would start to feel
the heat. You make a rough guess for the financial feasability of a
project, just by comparing its annual cost to the government budget of the
nation. By financial feasability, I do not mean to say that the said money
would be expendable to the government in question. Simply that if there was
a strong enough incentive, the government of the nation in question, could
divert the funds without significantly damaging public services. Financial
feasability is every bit as important as technical feasability, as the
members of this list well know. You can quite often get a 'feeling' as to
whether or not something is financialy possible, just by looking at the
numbers involved.
Tony
I would have thought that Germany, being a member of ESA (c.f., http://www.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/ariane_vinci_talk_010612.html), would have access to the Korou launch site. Am I mistaken?
hollroa@...
06/13/2001 09:56 AM ZE2
...
For Germany and the UK, one significant problem that I can see is finding
a launch site. Germany would either have to enter into co-operation with
another nation or launch from a sea platform of some kind. ...
>>>I would have thought that Germany, being a member of ESA (c.f.,
http://www.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/ariane_vinci_talk_010612.html
), would have access to the Korou launch site. Am I mistaken?>>>
are always going to remain tip-top. If there is a trade dispute and things
start to get ugly, is there anything actualy stopping the French from
saying that no German launch vehicle or equipment can set-foot on French
colonial soil? This is an unlikely I grant you. But still, the Germans
would be betting tens of billions of dollars on the hospitality of the
French. That is something that i personally, would not feel comfortable
with. Maybe I'm just paranoid...
Tony
There is no other country other than the UK that uses billion to mean
10^12.
dollars, not in local currencies.
Bill
> Just a few quick clarification questions. Hypothetica apparently
> uses the $ symbol for its currency. Are you assuming that
> Hypothetica's currency translates dollar for dollar to US currency?
> You spelled mobilization as "mobilisation" indicating that perhaps
> your own thinking is not US based. So, When you say "Bn" meaning
> billion, do you mean British billion or US billion? Because,
frankly
> three billion US dollars per year for any single project is a lot of
> money for just about any country including the US.
>
> > Two scenarios were discussed: (1) The national mobilisation
> > model, were
> > the country, makes the space program their national
> > mission-statement, and
> > commits huge national resources upwards of $20Bn/annum for at
least
> > 10
> > years, towards its completion. (2) The national side project
model.
>
> >>>I would have thought that Germany, being a member of ESA (c.f.,
> http://www.space.com/spacenews/launchindustry/ariane_vinci_talk_010612.html
> ), would have access to the Korou launch site. Am I mistaken?>>>
>
> True enough. But this assumes that relations between Germany and France
> are always going to remain tip-top. If there is a trade dispute and things
> start to get ugly, is there anything actualy stopping the French from
> saying that no German launch vehicle or equipment can set-foot on French
> colonial soil? This is an unlikely I grant you. But still, the Germans
That is not an option.
Tony, Ia am surprised, you seem completely unaware of how things work in
Europe (even though you live there!).
The EU Treaty guaranteees free movement of goods and servides throughout
the EU without impediment.
As long as France and Germany remain members of the EU, trade disputes
simply cannot happen by definition, they are part of a common trading
block.
Since Germany and France were founding members of the EU, it is
unthinkable that either country would cede from the EU. On the
contrary, they are both pushing for a federal european state.
Both countries are also a member of ESA, which provides for common use
of the Kourour facilities.
Germany can buy commercial launches from Airanespace, and under the EU
treaty France cannot block that transaction.
The only exceptions involve safety and public health, e.g. British beef
was banned to prevent spread of BSE disease, and British livestock was
banned to prevent spread of Foot and Mouth Disease. But the same
restrictions applied within Britain itself, so it was not Britain versus
the EU, rather Britain AND the EU trying to get things under control.
> would be betting tens of billions of dollars on the hospitality of the
> French. That is something that i personally, would not feel comfortable
> with. Maybe I'm just paranoid...
>
If you are in the EU then hospitality is a given.
It would be similar to the State of FLorida banning launches of payloads
from California from Cape Canaveral, it simply ain't gonna happen !
There are Federal courts of appeal, just as there is an EU court of
appeal.
In a message dated 06/13/2001 2:09:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
hollroa@... writes:
>>
understand. Working things out in Sterling, Francs or Deutch marks would
get confusing.
>>
Not any more, The Franc and Mark are part of the Euro, fixed exchange
rate, couldn't be simpler.
Sterling is the odd one out, but under Tony Blair they will soon join
the Euro.
In a couple of years the Euro will be the standard throughout the EU,
and the local currencies will be gone completely.
Euro bills are presently being minted and stockpiled in warehouses for
the transition.
Do you not read the newspapers ?
>>>>Huh ?
rate, couldn't be simpler.
Sterling is the odd one out, but under Tony Blair they will soon join
the Euro.
In a couple of years the Euro will be the standard throughout the EU,
and the local currencies will be gone completely.
Euro bills are presently being minted and stockpiled in warehouses for
the transition.
Do you not read the newspapers ?>>>>
It would be easy enough to work in Euro's and most people would know what
you mean. Even in Britain, it is not uncommon to find a price quoted in
Euro's as well as pounds. In Belgium (which is where I am based, right now)
as you quite rightly pointed out, the franc is only a measure of
convenience. The actual currency of business is Euro's.
For a right-wing nationalist British party, a plan like the hypothetica
one, would allow the country to build up quite a significant space industry
in a reasonably short space of time. The shear amount of revenues and power
that could be generated through the domination of the satellite and SPS
industries, would effectively allow an independent country to hold its own
against the EU, in much the same way as Japan does against the much larger
China.
I actually contacted a great number of political parties in Britain, and
gave them an outline of a Hypothetica-O'Neill type concept. In most cases I
got a reply that said something about "waiting for the Future". One
right-wing party in particular, the British National Party (maybe not the
most politically correct of parties), was so interested in the project that
it took me by surprise. This party has achieved enormous growth in Britain
in the last few elections and in some places it is the third or fourth
major political party. I think that a great many people in the UK, are not
too happy about being swallowed up by Europe.
A 'Hypothetica' type plan, might seem very attractive to these people,
because it provides them with both an escape mechanism and the possibility
of mobilising the public with a truly original idea. Never mind the fact
that it is a bit alien to most peoples thinking, would the national
mobilisation model, provide a plausible mechanism for an independent
Britain? A UK that could economically hold her own against her EU nabour?
Besides the fact, I think what the BNP had in mind was a mechanism that
would build a new British empire! After all, that is what the 'Hypothetica'
plan leads towards. These were the sort of questions the BNP was asking and
I started the thread in order to explore the answers. My own political
views about joining Europe, are somewhat undecided. Some people in the UK
really do hate the idea.
The only problem is, I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by helping
these people. Maybe we should be working towards a truly international
effort. I would not be happy with the idea of a single nation, (or handful
of nations) dominating or governing the final frontier, even if it were my
own nation. On the other hand, if the proposal is accepted and carried out,
and it sparks interest in other parts of the world (as it surely would do),
the result would be increased activity in space, across the board. Maybe
this is worth a try? What's your opinion?
Tony
> I was thinking that 'hypothetica' could probably be used as a
> model for
> any G8 country supporting an independent space program. My original
> assumption was that hypothetica might be the US. It seems clear
> that either
> Germany, UK or France could easily afford a program that would put
> large
> amounts of human infrastructure in HEO. One of the requirements for
> the
> program would probably be the development of a Big Dumb Booster.
> Incidentally, I believe that the 'British Billion' is now a more or
> less
> defunct number, which is no longer used. When you hear the term
> 'billion',
> it almost invariably means 10**9 not 10**12. It is also customary
> to work
> out costs in the US dollar, since it is a unit that I and most
> other people
> understand. Working things out in Sterling, Francs or Deutch marks
> would
> get confusing.
USD/yr). This seems reasonable for any G8 country supporting an
independent space program. (Wouldn't it be nice if the US would
redirect a mere 10% of its defense budget to this effort!? It would
almost make paying taxes fun.)
Here are some more Pros and Cons then:
Proposal (1)
PROS:
Mankind eases into the idea of being a space faring species.
Benefits from the 'natural' growth rate of technology within
it's own existing economy.
Benefits from a flatter learning curve producing fewer
accidents and perhaps more effecient designs.
CONS:
I may not get to go. (I guess this translates to Lost
Interest because the goal is too far away.)
High risk of continual changes in direction. Thus,
extending the project even more.
Proposal (2)
PROS:
National unification around a big project.
CONS:
High capital investement may make it difficult
for privatization once complete.
Culture shock: "We're in space, now what?"
growth in Britain
in the last few elections and in some places it is the third or fourth
major political party. I think that a great many people in the UK, are not
too happy about being swallowed up by Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
The views of extremist third and fourth parties are pretty irrelevant. Their policies are based on terror and inciting racial violence, because they cannot achieve their objectives through democratic means. I see no value in associating with such elements.
Their tactics bear sinister resemblence to those used by the Nazis in the 1930's.
>The views of extremist third and fourth parties are pretty irrelevant.
Their policies are based on terror and inciting racial violence,
because they cannot achieve their objectives through democratic
means. I see no value in associating with such elements.
>
Let's take a social engineering viewpoint. The goal would be to
channel unwanted social energy into more productive channels. So,
could you convince these parties that the way to make the UK great
would be to pour their energies into building grassroots organizations
for the promotion of space industrialization? I don't think that
it would hurt to try. Ignoreing them doesn't solve anything.
mejames@...
http://www.InnerTransit.net (Email distribution for multilevel organizations)
http://www.InnerTransit.org (Homebase for collaborative engineering)
Everybody, let's please keep the topics of discussion related to SSI work. Thanks.
Mike Combs
growth in Britain
in the last few elections and in some places it is the third or fourth
major political party. I think that a great many people in the UK, are not
too happy about being swallowed up by Europe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
That is a minority view. The Labor Party got a landslide in the last election, and so it is now a given that Britain will integrate with the Euro.
The views of extremist third and fourth parties are pretty irrelevant. Their policies are based on terror and inciting racial violence, because they cannot achieve their objectives through democratic means. I see no value in associating with such elements.
Their tactics bear sinister resemblence to those used by the Nazis in the 1930's.
>>>>The views of extremist third and fourth parties are pretty irrelevant.
Their policies are based on terror and inciting racial violence, because
they cannot achieve their objectives through democratic means. I see no
value in associating with such elements.
1930's.>>>>
That is to some extent true, although the party did make it extremely
clear that it does not condole violence. These people are quite extreme and
their views do not fit in with the multi-cultural ideas that most of us
have been taught to accept. I am dubious about supporting such a party,
although I do not believe that they are in the same league as the Nazi's.
The point is, as Mitchell James said, if these people could be persuaded
that the way to make the UK great, is by promoting space industrialisation,
then something truly useful could come out of all this. I have already sent
a copy of 'the High Frontier' to the leader of the party and I am in charge
of producing their space policy. There has been significant interest in the
ideas, already. I believe that the party certainly could be persuaded to
advocate the O'Neill dream. If this happens, the O'Neill vision would gain
a significant voice within the UK, which in turn, could spark interest in
Europe and the US. A political party that strongly advocates an industrial
and human presence in space, could be a powerful engine, committed to
achieving an extremely positive goal for mankind. Other, more powerful
parties, like Labour, would certainly be forced to examine the idea and
assess its feasibility.
>>>>So,
could you convince these parties that the way to make the UK great
would be to pour their energies into building grassroots organisations
for the promotion of space industrialization? I don't think that
it would hurt to try. Ignoring them doesn't solve anything.>>>>
Tony
>
> Let's take a social engineering viewpoint.
> There is no other country other than the UK that uses billion to mean
> 10^12.
used by the BBC. 'Billionaire awarded Knighthood' was on the news
tonight. He wasn't THAT rich. Even Bill Gates isn't that rich ;-)
> Bill
civilization?"
[snikt]
> The only problem is, I don't know if I'm doing the right thing by
helping
> these people. Maybe we should be working towards a truly international
> effort. I would not be happy with the idea of a single nation, (or handful
> of nations) dominating or governing the final frontier, even if it were my
> own nation. On the other hand, if the proposal is accepted and carried
out,
> and it sparks interest in other parts of the world (as it surely would
do),
> the result would be increased activity in space, across the board. Maybe
> this is worth a try? What's your opinion?
>
like that. Never mind if in the future some crazy ultra-right wing English
politicians decide to build mass drivers in space directed toward Earth and
conquer the world... ;-)
> Tony
[snikt]
Lucio
[snikt]
> For Germany and the UK, one significant problem that I can see is
finding
> a launch site. Germany would either have to enter into co-operation with
> another nation or launch from a sea platform of some kind. The UK has
> various small island possessions in the Caribbean and pacific and Indian
> oceans. I don't know if any of these are large enough or close enough to
> the equator to be useful. The French have retained colonial rule over a
> small portion of north America: : french guyana. This has existing launch
> facilities that are curently dedicated to Ariane. This would give the
> French a head start, even though the German and British governments
> probably have more disposable government income.
an agreement with the Brazilian government to use the Alcntara launch
facility, in the northeast of Brazil. It is less than 5 degrees south of the
Equator, if I remember correctly...
> I considered the possibility that a smaller economy like Holland, Sweden,
> Norway, Australia, Canada, Russia, Brazil or even South Africa could
> support such a program out of their government budgets, as long as
> expendature did not exceed $2-3Billion/year.
>
As you may have suspected, I'm Brazilian, and I think that my country would
have the money. (For example, our GDP is around 1.0 trillion dollars, not
much bellow the 1.3 trillion dollar GDP of France.) However, I think that
such a program would have *NO* popular support by the Brazilian population.
The average Brazilian is used to think of space as an outlandish place that
exists only in sci-fi movies; and, if presented to the idea of spending
government money with space, he or she would protest against it, saying that
the country has much more urgent needs (and I would have to agree, at least
partially). Even our modest space program to develop a satellite launch
vehicle is often criticized by many, and it survives with a very small
funding... On the other hand, Brazilians in general think that it is
beneficial to attract foreign money in any possible way, for example by
renting our launch facilities...
>
> Tony
[snikt]
Lucio
>>>>However, I think that
such a program would have *NO* popular support by the Brazilian population.
The average Brazilian is used to think of space as an outlandish place that
exists only in sci-fi movies; and, if presented to the idea of spending
government money with space, he or she would protest against it, saying
that
the country has much more urgent needs (and I would have to agree, at least
partially).>>>>
the idea of MAKING money in space. A little knowledge can be a dangerous
thing. Sometimes I think it would be better if the general public had no
knowledge, or preconceived ideas about space activities, at all. The
problem with democratic societies is that people tend to hold opinions on
everything, even things they know nothing about. We are all guilty of this
in one area or another. I am extremely anti-EU, even though I do confess to
being extremely ignorant of all of its internal workings, laws and bylaws.
If I knew more about it, my opinion would doubtless be very different. A
truly open mind, is a rare thing indeed.
Ironically enough, it is the 'waste of money' attitude that most people
adopt towards space, that actually creates an opening for smaller economies
like Brazil, France, Germany, UK, etc.
While the rest of the world contentedly ignores the huge market potential
of SPS satellites made from lunar materials, a small nation like Brazil
could make its move. A Big Dumb Booster program, would be a good start. Not
only does it give you a cheap and easy mechanism for sending dumb payloads
to HEO and the Lunar surface, it also allows you to capture a good portion
of the existing GEO communication satellite market.
I have brought up the subject of space activities in conversations with
dozens of my European colleagues. Their response is almost always the same:
"It is the most ridiculous thing that you could ever do with your money.
The cash would be far better spent on hospitals, schools or anything else."
I routinely chuckle to myself, every time that I hear this. Most Europeans
have literally no idea just how much money is tied up in concepts like the
SPS or even the existing GEO satellite markets. Never once in their lives
does it occur to them that the profits to be had in space could pay their
entire nations health budget, 100 times over. When they think space, they
think NASA, which is probably about the worst role model that a nation
could have.
Tony
> Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 14:29:25 +0200
>
>...Never once in their lives
>does it occur to them that the profits to be had in space could pay their
>entire nations health budget, 100 times over. When they think space, they
>think NASA, which is probably about the worst role model that a nation
>could have.
before SEI) that looked at different alternatives (Mars first, Moon first,
Moons of Mars, etc.). During that process, someone had managed to get a
Lunar Resource Utilization study proposed. It was to examine the technology
and transportation requirements for a large scale development of the Moon,
which produced SPS for terrestrial energy needs - basically the O'Neill
scenario. Unlike anything NASA has every considered before or since, the
outline of this study described massive *profits*. The funding line started
negative, then crossed zero and went way way up on the positive side. Self
sustaining economic development of space.
But that study was rejected. All the NASA folks could say was 'look at how
much it would cost.." Economics never was their strong point. (sigh)
As for the hypothetical national program, I think you would do well to
first focusing on the legal and political climate to attract commercial
space development projects to operate from that country. I don't know if
you would get want you want from a big national program to develop space -
the real customer is usually the politicians, who want the jobs and
spending in their location. The actual results are a pretty minor concern.
(Like the 1970's idea of a national satellite phone system, with a NASA
developed, government operated GEOsat larger than ISS. It would have been a
nightmare of Congressional hearings, and achieved far less than the
competing commercial systems build with investor money. Some investors
suffered - like those for Iridium. But at least they weren't taxed into
investing.)
There may be chances for an international version of what is happening on
the state level. The state of Oklahoma may jump into the lead in space
tourism due to the attractive legal and political climate they have been
creating in the past few months. And Russia seems to be the place to do
space business these days, given the way the US and other countries are
acting. There may be opportunities for places like Brazil to attract
investment, without spending a lot of money.
- Eric Dahlstrom
PS. On the power relay side, do some more research before reinventing the
wheel. There have been lots of proposals for power relay as a first step
toward power from space. I think Glaser has it as a step in his scheme. But
those (trans-area x rec-area) formulas are killers for the throughput of
any small scale demo.
________ InternationalSpace.com _________
PO Box 60606 Washington DC 20039-0606 USA
[snikt]
> That's because, like most people on planet Earth, they are not used to
> the idea of MAKING money in space. A little knowledge can be a dangerous
> thing. Sometimes I think it would be better if the general public had no
> knowledge, or preconceived ideas about space activities, at all. The
> problem with democratic societies is that people tend to hold opinions on
> everything, even things they know nothing about. We are all guilty of this
> in one area or another. I am extremely anti-EU, even though I do confess
to
> being extremely ignorant of all of its internal workings, laws and bylaws.
fits it perfectly. Many of the few "high-tech" long term Brazilian research
efforts - including our nuclear and space programs - were spawned when the
country lived under a dictatorship, governed by a military junta, from the
late 60's to the early 80's. At the time, people complained about the waste
of money and things like that, but anyway they had no influence on the
government decisions ;-). (BTW, the only nuclear power plant built at that
time is now a huge energy supplier in one of our major states, and our only
space base is now being presented for rent to Ukrainians, Chinese, Europeans
and, apparently, Americans. So, the "waste of money" argument does not look
so compelling after a perspective of two decades.)
On the other hand, in our present democratic regimen, any minister or
president suggesting heavy investments in a space program would be
committing political suicide. Also, who cares about long-term programs when
a mandate for the presidency lasts just four years?
[snikt]
> Tony
[snikt]
Lucio
>
> those (trans-area x rec-area) formulas are killers for the throughput of
> any small scale demo.
>
I am talking the real mccoy.
Gigawatts, perhaps tens of gigawatts.
What is the projected Califoronia shortfall this summer ?
What is the cost of linking the west coast grid to the Texas grid ?
We could beam it in from Texas.
Cheers,
CR.