With all due respect to everyone on this list and the accomplishments
and sacrifices of the Russian people and their space program I must
disagree with plans to 'internationalize' space exploration.. at this
time.
Americans support NASA. Take that away and you have an expensive and
ARCANE endevour that is difficult for the tax payer to comprehend.
Most people accep that space exploration is expensive and dangerous
but are willing to bear the expense because they believe some great
good will come of it 'someday'. If they believe that others will
exploit our efforts and crowd us out, as was done with electronics,
the 'why bother' argument has considerable teeth.
I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with new
American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-sale,
Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry in
the long run. It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a few
years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally ("When it
has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a space
fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will all
fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore.
--- In ssi_list@... "macrobot118 "
> With all due respect to everyone on this list and the
accomplishments
> and sacrifices of the Russian people and their space program I
must
> disagree with plans to 'internationalize' space exploration.. at
this
> time.
>
> Make no mistake, national pride is one of the strongest reasons
> Americans support NASA. Take that away and you have an expensive
and
> ARCANE endevour that is difficult for the tax payer to comprehend.
> Most people accep that space exploration is expensive and
dangerous
> but are willing to bear the expense because they believe some
great
> good will come of it 'someday'. If they believe that others will
> exploit our efforts and crowd us out, as was done with
electronics,
> the 'why bother' argument has considerable teeth.
>
> I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with
new
> American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-
sale,
> Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry
in
> the long run. It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a few
> years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally ("When
it
> has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a
space
> fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will
all
> fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore.
of the many reasons the Russians were incorporated into NASA space
efforts was to preclude all of those "rocket scientists" going to
look for work from the Rogue states that want missile technology. If
you cut the Russians loose at a time when the US is trying to put
the WMD genie back in the bottle, I think you may find that North
Korea may evenutally get an ICBM capable of reaching the continental
US, that Iran, which is now mining its own uranium, may develop a
nuclear device and also hiring Russian scientists to develop
missiles.
As for the other countries involved in the ISS, much of their
involvement is for foreign policy reasons and economics rather than
the need for foreign technological expertise.
I'm not sure how you equate a solo space effort with protecting
space-based breakthroughs from competition. The US electronics
manufacturing industry withered because of competitive forces not
because other countries learned how to manufacture electronic
components. They just did it better and cheaper.
In your business examples you cite the providers of a service
(airlines, delivery, satellites) but don't consider the manufacturer
and the increased market that they could sell to it they had a whole
world to sell to. Consider the economic impact of selling 100 sub-
orbital shuttles to a domestic US market compared to 1,500 to a
world-wide market.
I think you need to fill out your argument a little bit more.
TangoMan
My argument remains the same. You gave logical reasons and, frankly,
I agree with them, but I am not everyone. Those of us on this list
constitute preaching to the choir. Our domestic electronics faded
during Viet Nam when military work crowded out TVs and stereos at GE,
RCA, Westinhouse, Zenith, etc. Once the technology went overseas the
decline began.
about BUYING Soviet cast-offs. I WANT Boeing, et al, to sell hardware
whose development was paid for with US taxpayer money, overseas, but
create, preserve and defend the American jobs whose taxes paid for it
in the first place.
I believe that international co-operation is essential but right now,
unless we protect and grow jobs, the world will become a nightmare
scenario of international money and all workers in the 3rd world,
even American workers.
Additionally, we are years away from substantial pay-offs to space
exploration and in my opinion, pride is the interest on the loan.
--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman
> --- In ssi_list@... "macrobot118 "
> > With all due respect to everyone on this list and the
> accomplishments
> > and sacrifices of the Russian people and their space program I
> must
> > disagree with plans to 'internationalize' space exploration.. at
> this
> > time.
> >
> > Make no mistake, national pride is one of the strongest reasons
> > Americans support NASA. Take that away and you have an expensive
> and
> > ARCANE endevour that is difficult for the tax payer to
comprehend.
> > Most people accep that space exploration is expensive and
> dangerous
> > but are willing to bear the expense because they believe some
> great
> > good will come of it 'someday'. If they believe that others will
> > exploit our efforts and crowd us out, as was done with
> electronics,
> > the 'why bother' argument has considerable teeth.
> >
> > I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with
> new
> > American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-
> sale,
> > Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry
> in
> > the long run. It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a
few
> > years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally
("When
> it
> > has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a
> space
> > fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will
> all
> > fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore.
>
> I can sympathize with your patriotic feelings but consider that one
> of the many reasons the Russians were incorporated into NASA space
> efforts was to preclude all of those "rocket scientists" going to
> look for work from the Rogue states that want missile technology.
If
> you cut the Russians loose at a time when the US is trying to put
> the WMD genie back in the bottle, I think you may find that North
> Korea may evenutally get an ICBM capable of reaching the
continental
> US, that Iran, which is now mining its own uranium, may develop a
> nuclear device and also hiring Russian scientists to develop
> missiles.
>
> As for the other countries involved in the ISS, much of their
> involvement is for foreign policy reasons and economics rather than
> the need for foreign technological expertise.
>
> I'm not sure how you equate a solo space effort with protecting
> space-based breakthroughs from competition. The US electronics
> manufacturing industry withered because of competitive forces not
> because other countries learned how to manufacture electronic
> components. They just did it better and cheaper.
>
> In your business examples you cite the providers of a service
> (airlines, delivery, satellites) but don't consider the
manufacturer
> and the increased market that they could sell to it they had a
whole
I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with new American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-sale, Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry in the long run. No, it probably does. American space hardware is currently overpriced by about 10-100x. The Russians are the only ones that have applied significant attention to making space cheaper, and they are gradually reaping the benefits.
It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a few years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally ("When it has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a space fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will all fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore. Seems unlikely. Keeping high prices merely means that noone except a very few Americans and even fewer foreigners will buy your hardware and services. All it means is that American space may fade away, and in any case, cannot grow. It's economic suicide.
Hoohrah!!!
Hello
billions a year for 50+ years and developed transistors, solar
panels, PCs and dozens of other high profit technologies. Yet our
young people do not work in TV or computer factories making a good
salary, buying homes and cars and sending their children to college.
Instead they work for minumum wage at Circuit City, selling the
stuff. Second, the Russian hardware is not economically viable in the
long run. They are selling hardware for, virtually, food. The fees
barely cover the costs and leave no funds to further develop the
technology. Were it not for surplus military hardware the Russsians
would have no program at all.
Such sales erode the market base for a true 'space DC-3'. Just as
American airplane builders had to wait for the JN-4s of WW1 to wear
out, so will the new space technology builders. The sooner the
military-funded designs die off the better for all of us.
--- In ssi_list@... "ian.woollard"
>
> >I believe a revitalization of NASA is needed but it must be with
new
> >American designs that create opportunities for us. Using garage-
sale,
> >Russian Cold War hardware does not create a viable space industry
in
> >the long run.
> >
> No, it probably does. American space hardware is currently
overpriced by
> about 10-100x. The Russians are the only ones that have applied
> significant attention to making space cheaper, and they are
gradually
> reaping the benefits.
>
> > It only extends the quasi-military aspects for a few
> >years more. Unless we find ways to send FEDEX sub-orbitally ("When
it
> >has to be their in 15 minutes"), unless United Airlines has a
space
> >fleet, unless we create something like Satellites-R-Us, it will
all
> >fade away before anyone notices, because no one will care anymore.
> >
> Seems unlikely. Keeping high prices merely means that noone except
a
> very few Americans and even fewer foreigners will buy your hardware
and
> services. All it means is that American space may fade away, and in
any
> case, cannot grow. It's economic suicide.
>
> The way out is to look for appropriate technology that can cut
costs;
Second, the Russian hardware is not economically viable in the long run. They are selling hardware for, virtually, food. Um. No actually. The Russians make a tidy profit. A Soyuz rocket costs about $5 million to manufacture, the Proton about $6 million. You need to add on the cost of the launch pad, fuel and so forth, but that's not going to be more than 2x more. And they sell launches for $60-85 million. That means that they have a profit of more than 50% which ain't bad. In fact they've been sandbagging for several years; there was a cartel arrangement that they weren't allowed to undercut American launchers by more than a certain percentage; the cartel arrangement has come to its agreed end point in the last couple of years.
The fees barely cover the costs and leave no funds to further develop the technology. Were it not for surplus military hardware the Russsians would have no program at all. Um. No actually. Neither the Soyuz nor the Proton are surplus military hardware. In fact the Proton never, ever was military; although some of the predecessors were ICBMs; much like most of the American launchers (including Apollo). Such sales erode the market base for a true 'space DC-3'. Just as American airplane builders had to wait for the JN-4s of WW1 to wear out, so will the new space technology builders. The sooner the military-funded designs die off the better for all of us. That's a laugh. American launches fall into two camps, more or less:
b) NASA Shuttle launches.
Bearing in mind the extremely high cost of Shuttle launches; that's not getting us anywhere very fast at all.
Regardless, I would never support using US tax money to pay Russians
for launch services or hardware.
capsules? See how long they will exist if they started doing that.
Fine, the shuttle has flaws. We knew that in the 1970's when it all
began. NASA wanted a tindy space plane and Nixon wouldn't fund it
until the Air Force agreed to put up money, too. But they required an
enlarged craft for reasons better left to the imagination.
NASA ended up with the proverbial 'barrel of sick snakes' after the
AirForce backed out of the program.
Personally, I don't think we are past the research stage yet. No
launch system in existence does everything right yet. The right
design is yet to come and we will never get there until we start
working on them.
I still believe we need a Model-T of space and I don;t see one yet.
--- In ssi_list@... "ian.woollard"
>
> >Second, the Russian hardware is not economically viable in the
> >long run. They are selling hardware for, virtually, food.
> >
> Um. No actually. The Russians make a tidy profit. A Soyuz rocket
costs
> about $5 million to manufacture, the Proton about $6 million. You
need
> to add on the cost of the launch pad, fuel and so forth, but that's
not
> going to be more than 2x more. And they sell launches for $60-85
> million. That means that they have a profit of more than 50% which
ain't
> bad. In fact they've been sandbagging for several years; there was
a
> cartel arrangement that they weren't allowed to undercut American
> launchers by more than a certain percentage; the cartel arrangement
has
> come to its agreed end point in the last couple of years.
>
> > The fees
> >barely cover the costs and leave no funds to further develop the
> >technology. Were it not for surplus military hardware the
Russsians
> >would have no program at all.
> >
> Um. No actually. Neither the Soyuz nor the Proton are surplus
military
> hardware. In fact the Proton never, ever was military; although
some of
> the predecessors were ICBMs; much like most of the American
launchers
> (including Apollo).
>
> >Such sales erode the market base for a true 'space DC-3'. Just as
> >American airplane builders had to wait for the JN-4s of WW1 to
wear
> >out, so will the new space technology builders. The sooner the
> >military-funded designs die off the better for all of us.
> >
> That's a laugh. American launches fall into two camps, more or less:
>
> a) american military launches
> b) NASA Shuttle launches.
>
> Bearing in mind the extremely high cost of Shuttle launches; that's
not