# 15877 byRavenart@... on Oct. 13, 2001, 9:45 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
<< I also read in a post that it's a bit of a paradox. Reduce the cost
of getting to LEO/GEO and the market would grow. But until there's a
market, there will be NO significant reduction in launch costs. Yet
another oversimplification, but is it accurate? If so, solutions? >>
"Space: the Next Business Frontier" he pointed out that space already make
$100 billion a year combined. The biggest is satellite industry with many
new products coming soon or are already up. In the wake of WTC on Sept. 11,
we have seen a huge need for far better communication and location system.
Cell phones were useless in city with high buildings and few broadcasting
points. TV and some radio was knocked out, except for CBS. We need better
location tracker for people in case of being buried in building collaspe or
soidlers needing to be pull out of territory. Also, we need better air
traffic tracking for airplane and Boeing have proposed air control system
based on satellites. Even solar power satellites could be sold on text of
freeing ourselves from oil and being protected againest terrorist attacks
because of their locations. Even if they destroy the ground transformers,
it's a simple matter to switch to another transformer right away.
Now the question to ask is how can we use today's needs to our advantage in
pushing for future colonization? As long as we use the markets' own power,
we can ride them like surfboarders to the place we want to go.
Carl Mullin
# 15878 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 13, 2001, 10:13 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Carl,
> There ARE markets right now for business in space! In new book by Lou Dobbs,
> "Space: the Next Business Frontier" he pointed out that space already make
> $100 billion a year combined. The biggest is satellite industry with many
These markets will not get us to the high frontier, since they all invole launching unamnned satellites
which are constructed from terrestrial resources.
By themselves the communications/locations systems will not lead us to space manufacturing.
Note that for most of these systems, the bulk of the cost/value is in the gorund segment,
and the spoace hardware is a small part of the overall system. Hence launch costs are
not very important, launch costs represents less than one percent of the overall system cost if you
include the gorund segment.
> new products coming soon or are already up. In the wake of WTC on Sept. 11,
> we have seen a huge need for far better communication and location system.
Not really, there is plenty of capacity in existing systems to cover this level of usage.
Satellite phones and location systems already exist.
> Cell phones were useless in city with high buildings and few broadcasting
> points. TV and some radio was knocked out, except for CBS. We need better
Satellite phones exist but they aqre very expensive, and are not a realistic
alternative to conventional cell phones. For consumers. They are useful
for emergency workers, but that is about it. Not a mass market.
The Iridium company who provides satellite phones went bankrupt. Their assetts were
sold off at a huge discount, and are still underutilized.
> location tracker for people in case of being buried in building collaspe or
> soidlers needing to be pull out of territory. Also, we need better air
Are you saying that we will all walk around carrying satellite locators ?
I really doubt that. There might be some market for emergency workers,
but again, that will not be a large market.
> traffic tracking for airplane and Boeing have proposed air control system
This system was proposed by o'Neill decades ago. It is expensive and for
now there is no sign that the FAA will invest much in this area. After Sept 11th the
Iridium company made a proposal to FAA for real time cockpit downlink, but that can probably be
satisfied using existing their capacity.
> based on satellites. Even solar power satellites could be sold on text of
> freeing ourselves from oil and being protected againest terrorist attacks
> because of their locations. Even if they destroy the ground transformers,
> it's a simple matter to switch to another transformer right away.
>
No that is not much of an argument, SPS is very expensive and there are other alternatives which are much cheaper.
There is plenty of coal, gas, oil shale and methane hydrate deposits around the world and on the ocean floor.
We do not need SPS to become independent of the Gulf states.
Completely disabling a rectenna would be practically impossible because of their size.
But the power transmission lines would still be vulnerable, perhaps more so in centralized recetenna power
distribution system. Compared with lots of smaller power stations scattered over a wider area.
> Now the question to ask is how can we use today's needs to our advantage in
> pushing for future colonization? As long as we use the markets' own power,
> we can ride them like surfboarders to the place we want to go.
>
I really do not see the terror attacks of Sept 11th changed anything from the standpoint of the high frontier,
neither for better nor for worse.
# 15879 byMitchell James on Oct. 13, 2001, 10:09 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> I really do not see the terror attacks of Sept 11th changed anything
> from the standpoint of the high frontier,
> neither for better nor for worse.
>
Agreed. The only small change is that in a some aerospace companies,
like the one I work for, there are a number of quick expensive pop-up
jobs that must be done within the next year. A result of the money
being spent for military readiness. This may result in a little extra
IR&D in unexpected places.
www.InnerTransit.org (homebase for collaborative engineering)
# 15880 bySirch Namdig on Oct. 15, 2001, 4:50 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> There ARE markets right now for business in space! In new book by
> Lou Dobbs,
> "Space: the Next Business Frontier" he pointed out that space
> already make
> $100 billion a year combined. The biggest is satellite industry
> with many
> new products coming soon or are already up.
get a copy. Thanks!
> In the wake of WTC on
> Sept. 11,
> we have seen a huge need for far better communication and location
> system.
> Cell phones were useless in city with high buildings and few
> broadcasting
> points. TV and some radio was knocked out, except for CBS. We
> need better
> location tracker for people in case of being buried in building
> collaspe or
> soidlers needing to be pull out of territory. Also, we need better
> air
> traffic tracking for airplane and Boeing have proposed air control
> system
> based on satellites. Even solar power satellites could be sold on
> text of
> freeing ourselves from oil and being protected againest terrorist
> attacks
> because of their locations. Even if they destroy the ground
> transformers,
> it's a simple matter to switch to another transformer right away.
These are great ideas. Remember this in spite of the curmudgeons and
naysayer's that hang out in this group (and others). If you don't
have the best idea, you have an idea. Space advocates, in my
experience, tend to look for walls rather than doors and windows.
Ignore them. They're part of the reason we aren't out there.
O'Neill himself envisioned a time when everyone on earth wears a
universal locator.
> Now the question to ask is how can we use today's needs to our
> advantage in
> pushing for future colonization? As long as we use the markets'
> own power,
> we can ride them like surfboarders to the place we want to go.
Absolutely.
> Carl Mullin
Thanks Carl. I enjoy reading a good, upbeat, forward-looking e-mail
every now and then.
Chris.
# 15881 byHuebner, Jay on Oct. 15, 2001, 5:15 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
There have been more negative comments from members of this group, in
effect that NASA or some other government is keeping us from our dreams of
space commerce. My reaction is that is silly. If it were not for NASA and
the Soviet (now Russian) space programs humans would yet to go to space.
The prospects of developing space commerce has been aided by these
government programs, maybe not as fast as could have been done, but private
organizations have yet to put a single human in space, though of course with
the Russian government's help MirCorp did. Without the efforts of
governments most humans would not even believe we could go to space and
live.
If you don't receive spacenews from http://www.space.com/ I encourage you
to consider it. It is upbeat and almost always positive. Their latest
e-letter includes, "The question of the flight of South African tycoon Mark
Shuttleworth to the International Space Station (ISS) as a space tourist
remains open, spokesman for the head of the Russian Aerospace Agency Sergei
Gorbunov told Interfax on Friday." You can get more information at
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/shuttleworth_update_011012.html.
Here a government is demonstrating an industry (space tourism) is ripe
for development. What more could we want?
Sincerely, Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
# 15882 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 15, 2001, 6:51 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> There have been more negative comments from members of this group, in
> effect that NASA or some other government is keeping us from our dreams of
> space commerce. My reaction is that is silly. If it were not for NASA and
Please, look more closely at the facts, I will spell them out for you.....
> the Soviet (now Russian) space programs humans would yet to go to space.
> The prospects of developing space commerce has been aided by these
> government programs, maybe not as fast as could have been done, but private
> organizations have yet to put a single human in space, though of course with
> the Russian government's help MirCorp did. Without the efforts of
That is the whole point.
It was the RUSSIAN govenrment, not the USA and not ESA !
USA and ESA were fighting Russia all the way.
The central question is, are they still doing so ?
That remains to be seen. The situation right now is very confusing, and that is NOT a healthy environment
for commercial activity.
Above all, commercial activity needs consistent support
from governments, and they are not getting it.
There is still outright opposition at very high levels of ESA and NASA, and indeed on Capitol Hill.
> If you don't receive spacenews from http://www.space.com/ I encourage you
> to consider it. It is upbeat and almost always positive. Their latest
> e-letter includes, "The question of the flight of South African tycoon Mark
> Shuttleworth to the International Space Station (ISS) as a space tourist
> remains open, spokesman for the head of the Russian Aerospace Agency Sergei
> Gorbunov told Interfax on Friday." You can get more
That information is at best incomplete, outdated, and very probably inaccurate.
Here is the scoop:
1) There has been a major difference of opinion between
Russia and Shuttleworth. Last I heard was this:
2) Itar-Tass issued a report on October 5th quoting RSA director Yuri Koptev as saying that the Shuttleworth
trip has been cancelled, and cited several reasons. This press release was posted in the Usenet newsgroup sci.space.news
3) This report is confirmed by http://www.nasawatch.com/
stating that Shuttleworth is "disappointed ".
===
Even if Russia had approved the flight, it is still unclear whether NASA would have allowed it. They gave way on the Tito flight, but they are still threatening to bill Russia for the cost of "disruption". That issue is still not resolved, and represents a major unknown quantity, and is a major drag on space tourism development.
I am hopeful it will be resolved utlimately, but the fact remains that ESA and NASA are still major obstacles. Space tourism will hapen DESPITE ESA and NASA, not because of them.
I applaud Russia on the other hand for taking a much more supportive position. Let us hope they prevail, but the jury is still out.
# 15883 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 15, 2001, 7:07 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> > There ARE markets right now for business in space! In new book by
> > Lou Dobbs,
> > "Space: the Next Business Frontier" he pointed out that space
> > already make
> > $100 billion a year combined. The biggest is satellite industry
> > with many
> > new products coming soon or are already up.
>
But the fact remains, these markets are not likely to
give us a spacefaring civilization in any forseeable timeframe.
> > In the wake of WTC on
> > Sept. 11,
> > we have seen a huge need for far better communication and location
> > system.
Sorry, this is just plain wrong, as I pointed out before.
The market for space telecomm continues to expand,
as the world economy expands, but the Sept 11th events have very little impact on the rate of growth.
Actually, it could have a short term negative effect
because it has adversely affected economic growth, which
has been an engine for comms expansion.
There is a physical limit to the growth of comms in
space, which is the spectrum limit.
Even if launch costs were zero, the comms launch market would be finite because there are a limited number of
GEO slots with the required frequncy separation.
>
> Thanks Carl. I enjoy reading a good, upbeat, forward-looking e-mail
> every now and then.
>
It is a pity we have to resort to hype and fiction to get this feel good sensation.
I would truly love to see a solid business plan, but so
far I have not seen anything like that which can
lead us to a spacefaring civilization.
A bunch of hype is not a business plan.
# 15884 byAndrew Case on Oct. 15, 2001, 8:48 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> There have been more negative comments from members of this group, in
> effect that NASA or some other government is keeping us from our dreams of
> space commerce. My reaction is that is silly. If it were not for NASA and
> the Soviet (now Russian) space programs humans would yet to go to space.
capital. Previous programs have had a similar chilling effect. NASA could
certainly be doing a better job of facilitating development of space
commerce. As is, it represents an obstacle both directly (the overt
hostility to Tito) and indirectly (by drying up the pool of venture
capital and by promulgating the false belief that space is intrinsically
an expensive place to do business). The institutional incentives within
NASA work directly against the interests of business, and those incentives
derive from the nature of NASA as a political organization. They have
to have a contractor in every major congressional district on large
projects in order to get support from Congress. Efficient organization,
particularly for cutting-edge research, dictates that you have everybody
in one place. Can't have it both ways. This is just one example of the
systemic problems with NASA.
By no means is NASA an unambiguous bad thing - they have done great work,
and they continue to do great work in certain areas. But the work needed
to build cheap launchers and begin the development of LEO industry has
already been done (in many cases by NASA and its' affiliates). NASA's
rightful business is at the next level of the frontier, not cluttering up
LEO and creating needles obstacles to LEO commerce. Let's not forget that
the vision of O'Neill sprang from a study in the 1970s!
......Andrew
Andrew Case
acase@...
Institute for Plasma Research
University of Maryland, College Park |
# 15885 byHuebner, Jay on Oct. 16, 2001, 9:07 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
"A bunch of hype is not a business plan." We are fighting Russia, where
have you been? The cold war is over, the ISS is up. What are you talking
about? The lack of a business plan is NASA and ESA's fault? It is hard to
psychoanalyze people at a distance, but I do know folks close up who argue
that they are smart by claiming others, usually of higher station, are dumb.
Isn't that the basis of many of these negative comments? Is there a point
to them for the rest of us?
Sincerely Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
# 15886 byHuebner, Jay on Oct. 16, 2001, 5:13 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
These are my last comments on this issue. I suggest it would be illegal, if
not immoral for NASA, which is funded by US taxpayers, to allow the ISS to
be used solely or primarily as a resort hotel for the profit of foreign
companies and governments, and not to try and carry out the objectives for
which congress funded it. Even if NASA was foolish enough to ask congress
to consider this, congress would look at the economics and say it could not
ever have enough rooms as a hotel to pay "the rent". I repeat my earlier
statement, that without the US and Soviet governments, which includes NASA,
no human would yet have gone to space and folks like us would be arguing if
that would ever be possible. I am glad that has been settled, and that I
can appreciate good work.
Sincerely,
Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
# 15887 byrmenich@... on Oct. 16, 2001, 7:34 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
I hear your points, Jay. I think that many contributors to this and other
lists are simply frustrated at what they perceive to be a lack of progress
in space, and that anger gets directed (often incorrectly) at NASA. I
agree that directing anger at "NASA" is a substantial oversimplification.
various planetary probes: NEAR Shoemaker, Galileo, Deep Space 1. The
Hubble Space Telescope and a wide variety of other telescopes and probes
continue to return great data, many of them years beyond their intended
design lives. No doubt the folks who work within NASA on these great
projects are no doubt offended by constant NASA-bashing.
As another example, everyone knows that the Shuttle never delivered on the
projections made before it was flown as to the cost of its operation or
flight rates. But to direct the anger for that failure entirely at NASA
would be to ignore the significant contribution to the problem by the
Administration, Congress, and public apathy. Everyone who has ever worked
on a big project for which the sales expectations were very high but
budget low knows the great technical and moral difficulties in getting a
big system built. Sausage-making can be an ugly process. That's life.
NASA got the Shuttle built under stressful budget constraints, and that
was an accomplishment.
A similar problem happened with ISS Alpha: is the fact that it is $4
billion overbudget solely NASA's fault? How would any organization have
been better able to handle the multitudinous redesigns that ISS had to
endure during its long birthing period? Ideally, one has a set of
unchanging and clear requirements when building a large system (e.g.,
"Before this decade is out..."), but that, in my opinion, is unfortunately
a fairly rare occurrence. When requirements are constantly in flux and
major project redesigns are happening, ..., well it's real tough.
But lacking a better catch-all scapegoat, the NASA label absorbs the
collected angst of the perceived lack of progress. And some of that
anger may be well-deserved. After all, NASA pioneered the large-project
management that was able to go from suborbital flight to landing on the
moon in less than a decade. Why couldn't they have used that project
management experience to foresee and mitigate the requirements problems
that happened with ISS Alpha, especially given their recent and painful
experience with the Shuttle fiasco? And why, given a long history of
successful X-planes and a very successful and low-budget DC-X project did
NASA undertake the X-33? Many, many people bemoaned that decision, and
they were right: X-33 eventually failed. And why is it that the
Russians have been the ones to pioneer so many of the commercial uses of
space such as television commercials and the first beginnings of space
tourism?
I think we all need a more complex understanding of the role of NASA. For
some aspects, NASA has done and is doing a fantastic job. For some
aspects, NASA has done a mediocre job, but for reasons that were largely
out of its control. For some aspects, NASA has clearly dropped the ball
big time.
I know that I am guilty of uninformed NASA-bashing from time to time.
Perhaps for me it is the great letdown of a boyhood fantasy: as a 7
year-old boy, I stood on the beach in the summer of 1971 and felt my body
shake as a Saturn V lifted Apollo 15 towards Hadley Rille. I was certain
that I would spend my adulthood living and working in space. When that
didn't happen, well, I had to find a scapegoat. Mea culpa.
(Did this posting come through in plain text?)
Ron Menich
"Huebner, Jay" jhuebn@...
10/16/01 10:07 AM
"A bunch of hype is not a business plan." We are fighting Russia, where
have you been? The cold war is over, the ISS is up. What are you talking
about? The lack of a business plan is NASA and ESA's fault? It is hard
to
psychoanalyze people at a distance, but I do know folks close up who argue
that they are smart by claiming others, usually of higher station, are
dumb.
Isn't that the basis of many of these negative comments? Is there a point
to them for the rest of us?
Sincerely Jay Huebner at jhuebn@...
# 15888 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 17, 2001, 8:43 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Subj: RE: [ssi_list] Re: Markets
Date: 10/16/2001 3:17:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Reply-to: ssi_list@...
As you wish.
not immoral for NASA, which is funded by US taxpayers, to allow the ISS to
It is perfectly legal.
It is perfectly moral.
be used solely or primarily as a resort hotel for the profit of foreign
companies and governments, and not to try and carry out the objectives for
Please cite the law under which this is illegal ?
By foreign do you include ESA ?
ISS is an international facility, funding comes from a variety of nations, mostly ESA and NASA.
Space Adventures is an American company.
Mircorp is a Dutch company, and the Netherland is a major participant in ESA.
NASA is required by law to help commercial space, but they are doing the precise opposite.
which congress funded it. Even if NASA was foolish enough to ask congress
to consider this, congress would look at the economics and say it could not
NASa is doing the opposite, they are asking congress to pass laws which explicitly prohibit tourists on ISS.
Even though tourists routinely visit federal facilities, including NASA facilities.
Note the irony, private companies make a nice profit from running tour buses around at least three different NASA centers.
Is this illegal ? No of course not.
Is this immoral ? No of course not.
ever have enough rooms as a hotel to pay "the rent". I repeat my earlier
Russia, Mircorp and Space Adventures all make good profts.
statement, that without the US and Soviet governments, which includes NASA,
no human would yet have gone to space and folks like us would be arguing if
Yes they have done good work in the past.
Does this entitle them to an eternal monopoloy on manned space flight ?
I think not....
CFR.
# 15889 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 17, 2001, 8:53 a.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>
> (Did this posting come through in plain text?)
>
NASA has done many great things in the past.
But does that give them a right to a permanent monopoly on manned space activities ?
What have then done for us lately ?
Well, yes, a couple of small items in the NASA portfolio are actually useful, in particular I agree that JPL does good work, though JPL themselves argue that they are not a part of NASA.
And the power systems work at Glenn Reseearch Center is a vital underpinning for possible future SPS.
And they do some useful work in supporting aeronatuics research which help the commercial aviation industry.
All that accounts for about 5% of today's NASA budget.
Are we getting anything useful for the other 95 % ?
Well it depends on your definition of "useful".
My definition of useful means that it will enable the creation of a spacefaring civilization.
By that defintion, 95% of the NASA budget is completely wasted today, and indeed is being used to thwart the objective.
I am not interested in spending the rest of my life reading about NASA's great
achievements in history books.
Been there, done that.
I want us to start developing the high frontier,
that means space tourism and energy. Space tourism
comes first.
The role of government is to either lead, or follow or get out of the way. In the area of space development 95% of NASA and ESA are essentially a set of roadblocks.
Am I missing something ?
Cheers,
Charles R.
# 15890 byDr. Omni on Oct. 17, 2001, 12:26 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
[snikt]
> (Did this posting come through in plain text?)
>
>
> Ron Menich
[snikt]
Lucio Coelho
# 15891 byIan Woollard on Oct. 31, 2001, 5:47 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> Carl,
> I must take issue with some of the points and claims you made.
> In a message dated Sat, 13 Oct 2001 10:47:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Ravenart@... writes:
>>There ARE markets right now for business in space! In new book by Lou Dobbs,
>>"Space: the Next Business Frontier" he pointed out that space already make
>>$100 billion a year combined. The biggest is satellite industry with many
> These markets will not get us to the high frontier, since they all invole launching unamnned satellites
> which are constructed from terrestrial resources.
> By themselves the communications/locations systems will not lead us to space manufacturing.
Agreed.
> Note that for most of these systems, the bulk of the cost/value is in the gorund segment,
> and the spoace hardware is a small part of the overall system. Hence launch costs are
> not very important, launch costs represents less than one percent of the overall system cost if you
> include the gorund segment.
Yes. But the more that gets thrown up there the lower the launch
costs are likely to go. A launch market of any reasonably
competitive kind is likely to be good for high frontier in the long
term, but neither helpful not hindrance in the short.
Space settlement can happen when the launch costs get low enough;
and maybe before that but it's less likely.
> The Iridium company who provides satellite phones went bankrupt. Their assetts were
> sold off at a huge discount, and are still underutilized.
Just one data point on your graph. And you are generalising to all
other points on the graph?
# 15892 byIan Woollard on Oct. 31, 2001, 6:02 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> There have been more negative comments from members of this group, in
> effect that NASA or some other government is keeping us from our dreams of
> space commerce.
dampening effect on new launchers. That's a bad thing.
> My reaction is that is silly. If it were not for NASA and
> the Soviet (now Russian) space programs humans would yet to go to space.
That isn't totally clear actually; the Germans unmanned rockets got
to space first.
> The prospects of developing space commerce has been aided by these
> government programs, maybe not as fast as could have been done, but private
> organizations have yet to put a single human in space, though of course with
> the Russian government's help MirCorp did. Without the efforts of
> governments most humans would not even believe we could go to space and
> live.
Let's assume that that is true.
Does that mean that NASA is still a good thing? Look how it reacts
to space tourism. Look what Mr. Beale said when he cancelled his
launch program about doing this due to the threat of competition
from NASA [presumably Boeing or McDonnel Douglas or someone was
behind the threat made to Beale]. Consider that Columbus's trip to
America was paid for by a government, but Americas colonisation was
more commercially based.
The question isn't 'was NASA a good idea'. That's an unqualified
yes. The question is more, does NASA still have any right to be
occupying portions of the launch market with a hugely expensive and
very, very heavily subsidised launch system, and threatening any
new launch systems?
Actually, that isn't the real question. The question is are the
politicians still getting votes from placing money in the
particular districts that the contracts go to; and are the
companies that win the contracts still contributing to the party
funds of the politicians?
# 15893 byIan Woollard on Oct. 31, 2001, 6:10 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
> In a message dated Mon, 15 Oct 2001 5:53:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Sirch Namdig cjgidman@... writes:
> There is a physical limit to the growth of comms in
> space, which is the spectrum limit.
electronically steerable antennas. These can point to arbitrarily
small regions of the sky and exclude other parts of the sky.
> Even if launch costs were zero, the comms launch market would be finite because there are a limited number of
> GEO slots with the required frequncy separation.
But the GEO comms market isn't the only part of the possible
launch market is it? It's not even the biggest part of the potential
launch market.
There's LEO comms sats, weather sats, spy sats, tourism; people who
want to live in space, people who want to travel to Mars, people
who want to live in the asteroid belt, microwave power satellites
etc. etc.
# 15894 bycfrjlr@... on Oct. 31, 2001, 6:33 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
Ian,
points are lost in obscurity.
Let me try to unravel it for you.
>
> But the GEO comms market isn't the only part of the possible
>
> launch market is it? It's not even the biggest part of the potential
>
> launch market.
>
GEO comsats are the biggest part of the present commercial market.
Is the military/intelligence market larger than commercial commsats today ? Not sure, probably yes.
As for the POTENTIAL market, well that is a different matter. Potential markets are NEW markets.
>
> There's LEO comms sats, weather sats, spy sats,
OK, those are PRESENT markets, but how much expansion potential do they really have ? Enough to get us
to the high frontier ? I doubt it.
> tourism; people who
> want to live in space, people who want to travel to Mars, people
> who want to live in the asteroid belt, microwave power satellites
> etc. etc.
>
All those things are POTENTIAL future markets, and so none of them are real; and the prospects right now do not look good for any of them, for the reasons previously discussed. Mostly governmental and political obstacles.
Mars is just plain too expensive, all the billionaires in the world do not have enough disposal income to make it happen, even if they wanted to. And all the Mars fans who go to scifi conventions do not have enoguh money, not even close.
Cheers,
Charles R.
# 15895 byIan Woollard on Oct. 31, 2001, 9:13 p.m.
Member since 2022-08-22
>>But the GEO comms market isn't the only part of the possible
>>
>>launch market is it? It's not even the biggest part of the potential
>>
>>launch market.
>
> Is the military/intelligence market larger than commercial commsats today ? Not sure, probably yes.
I don't think that's right. Most launches are commercial I believe.
> As for the POTENTIAL market, well that is a different matter. Potential markets are NEW markets.
That's clarified it greatly, thanks.
>>There's LEO comms sats, weather sats, spy sats,
>>
> OK, those are PRESENT markets, but how much expansion potential do they really have ? Enough to get us
> to the high frontier ? I doubt it.
LEO comm sats show the biggest potential growth; but only you
raised the possibility of the high frontier- and I don't know why
you did so. Even a big LEO launch program could cut the commercial
launch costs right now though. (We're down to about $2600/kg last
time I checked.)
>>tourism; people who
>>want to live in space, people who want to travel to Mars, people
>>who want to live in the asteroid belt, microwave power satellites
>>etc. etc.
>
> All those things are POTENTIAL future markets, and so none of them are
> real;
They are real markets, just they aren't being serviced at the moment.
> and the prospects right now do not look good for any of them,
> for the reasons previously discussed. Mostly governmental and
> political obstacles.
Presumably you live in America. It is noteable that America has
never launched the most rockets. It is also amusing that America
has NASA, which is the nearest thing you can imagine to a communist
organisation in a very capitalist country like America. NASA
doesn't read Karl Marx, but they do try to conquer space and by
that means try to ensure that no profit is made there except to the
companies spending tax dollars obtained in contracts with NASA.
It's wrong.
> Mars is just plain too expensive, all the billionaires in the world do
> not have enough disposal income to make it happen, even if they wanted to.
> And all the Mars fans who go to scifi conventions do not have enoguh money, not even close.
Mars is rather expensive right now. If the LEO launch costs come
down, then Mars is going to be within easy reach; personally I
don't care for it, but plenty of people want to go. There's nothing
inherently expensive about going to Mars.